Heisenberg, Schrodinger and Ohm are in a car They get pulled over. Heisenberg is driving and the cop asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?" "No, but I know exactly where I am" Heisenberg replies. The cop says "You were doing 55 in a 35." Heisenberg throws up his hands and shouts "Great! Now I'm lost!" The cop thinks this is suspicious and orders him to pop open the trunk. He checks it out and says "Do you know you have a dead cat back here?" "We do now, asshole!" shouts Schrodinger. The cop moves to arrest them. Ohm resists.
It is amazing how you uncomplicated your videos are... You take a complex and through the use of those brilliant animations and those simplified explanations... God, I would love to have you as my Physics teacher!!!
If you understand something you can explain it. The evidence is still complicated. Learning math can be difficult because we have to thicken the connection between the frontal cortex & parietal lobe.
I can't concentrate because she's beautiful. I'm just happy being ... 😲 ..and that's where my understanding end. Everything else is blah blaaaah, uh? Blah.
Yesterday was International Talk Like a Pirate Day and today we have this. The relationship between the days is expressed by an equation involving Walking the Planck’s Constant.
This video repeats the incredibly common confusion between the measurement problem and the uncertainty principle. They are emphatically NOT the same thing! The measurement problem is about the fact that you can't measure something without interfering with it. Very simple and easy to understand. The uncertainty principle is about the fact that conjugate variables literally can't both exist as defined quantities at the same time. It's not that we can't accurately measure the momentum of a confined particle, it's that there literally isn't a proper momentum to measure, even in principle. This is much harder to justify and understand but is a very well understood and universally accepted facet of quantum theory. This video gets a little closer to the point toward the end, but doesn't really nail it, and spends at least the first two thirds talking about the wrong topic. If you're not trained in physics, and often even if you are, this is a very easy mistake to make. Be highly suspicious whenever you see a video or article about the uncertainty principle, even by a usually high quality channel like this, and honestly quite often even coming from an academic. There have been a few occasions in the past when I've received messages from people saying things along the lines of "this video finally made the uncertainty principle click!" Twice from people with actual master's degrees in mathematics and physics. The link they provided made exactly this mistake. Point is, don't feel bad. Even the experts frequently confuse these two (sort of, loosely) related but very different phenomena.
I totally agree with Colin Broderick. I was about to write something similar. The uncertainty principle is not about our incapacity to measure accurately, but about the fact that the product : position time momentum (or the product of two other conjugate quantities) is not precise, it is fuzzy in nature independently of human measurements.
I actually came back to this video because I originally thought it was a good example of the Uncertainty Principle and then realized it is confused with measurement problems.
Nokay, but what is meant by uncertainty in position or uncertainty in momentum? How do you assign a number to uncertainty (use an interval maybe)? I have no idea.
Those variables are undefined before mesuare it. It isn't that you are not good enough to mesuare both of them at the same time, it's that mesuare one variable make you unknow more about the oder variable
Johann 0604 Yes it is. In fact, you can know the exact momentum probability distribution. And if you do, you can calculate the exact position probability distribution. Those are just Fourier transforms of each other, like you saw in the video. They are just like water waves: If you ask, how high is the wave? Well that depends on which of the waves you measure, because there are many waves running through each other. But when there is only one wave hight possible, well then asking: 'Where is the wave?' makes no sense, cause it's everywhere as high.
A "wavefunction" is just how we conceptualize and describe our knowledge of the state of a particle (or set of particles, with a bit more work). This knowledge has built into it a prediction of what would happen when we made a measurement, so it's really the same thing. It's not possible to separate a wavefunction from the notion of measurement because the wavefunction is only given _meaning_ because of how it describes measurement.
That's correct. This video makes the incredibly common mistake of mixing up or conflating the uncertainty principle and the measurement problem. They are not the same thing, but this is unfortunately an unbelievably common mistake, even from usually high quality sources like this one.
This is wrong. The measurement problem and the uncertainty principle are almost completely unrelated and are most definitely NOT the same thing. The definition of a wave function has literally nothing whatsoever to do with measurement.
This is by far the best and most concise and clear explanaition of the uncertainty principle I've ever heard! And I've spent a loooot of time in college. Thank you very much Jade!
It's wrong. This video confuses the uncertainty principle with the measurement problem, which is not the same thing and they have very little to do with each other.
@@ColinBroderickMaths No, it's not wrong. At first she explains it the way that Heisenberg himself theorized it (the observer effect). But later in the video she explains the actual wave mechanics behind it (the actual uncertainty principle). It's just delivered in 2 parts.
I think for the 1st time I have understood clean and clearly the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I badly needed this kind of teachers during my college days! But better late than never!! Thank you for this video. I will be waiting for more ☺️
Maybe the reason fewer people came to your party wasn't because of too much study, but because you spent a year in a bush watching an elderly lady. I'm sure Mildred would come to your birthday party though! (As long as it's not on a Sunday)
Amazingly I loved your intro and basic intuition. It is spot on. (Amazing because many phystubers just copypasta orthodox book knowledge with little insight). But @4:08 was a slight let down. Particles are not "both waves and particle." The duality principle is that we cannot use the wave equation and the particle equations at the same time or situation, you must use one or the other, and that depends on what you want or need to describe/predict. The elements of reality are _always particles._ They are never waves (except gravity waves, which are waves of the only continuum medium that exists, spacetime). Everything else is particle (aka. nontrivial spacetime topology). The wave-equation describes non-deterministic time evolution, and that is due to closed timelike curves (nontrivial spacetime topology). It is not due to anything called "Hilbert space". Hilbert space is a fictional construct, a mathematical tool. You know this because Hilbert space has massive gauge redundancy that cannot be removed. (See Jacob Barandes' talks and papers) so Hilbert space cannot be physical. It's just a construct, like "the metric components" or "coordinates" are just a construct in GR.
Regarding 3:23, measuring twice is known as the Golden Rule of Carpentry, because measuring a second time is for confirmation that can reduce uncertainty of cutting a piece of wood inaccurately.
Very often people decry the first "disturbance analysis" of the uncertainty principle, suggesting that the second point of view (which involves the Fourier transform) is the better one. I like that you presented both in equal footing, because they really are in equal footing: a wavefunction is nothing but a mathematical representation of a particle's state that has built into it that kind of disturbance analysis. The fact that position and momentum are conjugate variables (that is, that they Fourier transform into each other) wouldn't make any sense _unless_ we knew that position measurements disturb momentum measurements and vice versa. Both intuitions carry a risk though, and that is the risk of imagining that a quantum particle is just like a classical particle or just like a classical wave. Really it is neither, and we know that any naive classical hidden variables model (like one suggested by either picture) wouldn't work. Overall this is a very nice video! I would just like to leave a couple small corrections about the slide around the 7 and a half minute mark: 1. Energy and time are not exactly complementary properties because there is no observable (no Hermitian operator) corresponding to measurements of time. In nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, time is just a parameter. The so-called "energy-time uncertainty relation" is actually a bit subtler than most quantum mechanical uncertainty relations. John Baez has an excellent discussion on the subject at math(dot)ucr(dot)edu/home/baez/uncertainty.html. 2. Entanglement and coherence are not canonically conjugate either, for the reason that neither is really a well-defined observable. We say "entanglement" and we say "coherence" mostly like adjectives, meant to describe a given physical preparation rather than be actual quantum mechanical observables. For a given system it may be possible to define observables which correspond to intuitive ideas of "entanglement" and "coherence", and those observables may be conjugate. However, depending on how you define the terms and how you think about the system in detail, you may find that an opposite idea is true! See e.g. 1502.05876. All in all, I think the terms are just too vague to be assigned a precise conjugacy relation.
Vacuum Diagrams, thank you for (what seems to me) a significant contribution to the discussion. I'm relieved to learn from you that the "disturbance" intuition is just as correct as the Fourier-style explanation. Back at Berkeley, almost 50 years ago, I remember concocting an intuitive explanation for myself which was practically identical to the one Up and Atom described here using a basketball and tennis ball. My thought experiment involved rolling marbles of lower mass to report back on the position of heavier marbles. Later I read that was not a good way to explain the uncertainty principle. Now you say my line of thought was not too bad after all. Thanks!
@@RalphDratman oh but, if your analogy is in a Newtonian world, as suggested, knowing the start and end conditions (position, angle, velocity) of the cue ball allows you to back calculate the position of the target ball at impact, the momentum imparted to it and it's direction and speed of travel thereafter. Assuming you know it's mass. So the analogy presented here seems to assume that I wouldn't know how do that. But I do for macro scale Newtonian behaviour. So it's not an example of the uncertainty principle.
@@upandatom Thank You Jade, for your Heinsenberg Uncertainty Principle Intuition Conjugate Variables ie Velocity-Momentum explained here >> Your point seems to be MORE observation time of Mildred going to the store every Sunday implies more certainty that frequency=Once a week ; however you would have to observe Mildred over Infinite time to be 100% certain of Frequency .. .. ergo my conclusion is ALL Statistics is Bayesian Statistics which is simply updating our Bayesian-Prior assumptions ie Machine Learning ; Btw maybe say hi to Andrew Ng/Machine Learning Dept. there at Stanford about this ? I also note an Information Theory subtlety here, it may be that per Nyquist sampling theory we simply need to increase the Data Sampling Frequency Rate and include Mildred's Cat's wave function to produce more accurate predictions sooner/faster for a *CLOSED* system .. Also I've been researching where we ran off the track and I think it's the 1927 Solvay conference with Einstein-De Broglie where we derailed by ignoring "God does not play with dice" Einsteins statement .. LOL did I just say that out loud in public !!? Ok wow so Jade now I'M on the gradient descent of the Heisenberg-Conjugate-Variable of (greater math weather prediction prowess-fewer friends) with you and Jabril so will at least YOU be my friend LOL 😂 .. +UpandAtom +Jade +Jabril Note I'm a shy kitten (aka a De Broglie scaredy cat) and it takes up almost all of my Feynman swagger just to comment here 😊 , so to encourage more maybe you or Jabril can start with a like and a comment here to this comment ?
I want to point out something. The uncertainty principle is not based on the "experimental limits" of "measuring" where the electron was or how fast it's going. It's much more deeper than that. A good way to think of it is cardinal directions. Assume that "property x" can be one of "North", "South", "East" or "West", and that "property y" can be one of "North-East", "North-West", "South-East" or "South-West". You can't sanely say that you know the exact value of BOTH properties at the same time.. Because, a direction can't be North and North-East at the same time, as being North-East is by definition a superposition of being North and being East. And being North can be defined as being a superposition of being North-East and North-West. Knowing "property x" is BY DEFINITION not knowing "property y". Same goes for QM.. if you look into the math of definite-position and definite-momentum wavefunctions.. You'll realize how no wavefunction can accomplish both: having a well-defined position and a well defined momentum at the same time.. You can't even start to begin to imagine the idea of the presence of such wavefunction.. It's not that you're not allowed to know both.. It's much deeper than that.. It's that trying to know both doesn't make any kind of sense.. Like trying to be 100% North and 100% North-East at the same time. Position and Momentum, in QM, are very deeply linked in a way that forbids them to sanely exist with each other the way we're used to in classical mechanics. Having a definite position, by its very own definition, requires having no definite momentum, and vice versa.
Intuition is so important when learning difficult concepts. Thanks for sharing this video. I hope you make more videos about how to intuitively understand more complex areas of physics.
OMG I've studied economics my whole life and never had a single physics class, and I still got the idea! Excellent video with amazing (and hilarious) animations! THANK YOU!
So, I'm studying the history of Science. I had no idea that I wanted to do this until I took a class, and it COMPLETELY changed the course of my academic career. The problem is, I have zero science back round. I didn't even take physics in high school. So here I am trying to learn complicated theory from scratch. I have been doing countless hours of studying to familiarize myself with basic theory to be a better science historian in training. This is the absolute BEST video I have seen on Heisenberg. You break it down wonderfully. Thank you.
Honey, from an old A P Chemistry teacher you are outstanding. Your videos are so well thought out I am embarrassed how poorly I taught the Heisenberg Principle. I did teach so many students like you and I miss them so. never retire as you will regret it.
Even better is to imagine you are traveling along with a photon (which normally move at velocity c in a vacuum). Then time does not pass, meaning that you are everywhere at once.
@@david203 Photons don't exist neither does c. All imaginary fabricated science fiction. (c is most likely zero - images don't travel in space - you see everything in real time)
I really like your videos. coming from a more abstract understanding of the uncertainty principle using fourier transforms, it's nice to see some more intuitive examples.
Great work Jade. But the problem with most of the explanations with examples of HUP online is that they actually explain Epistemological HUP, not the Ontological HUP, which the QM physicists claim. Afaik, Every example you can think of to explain HUP is only Epistemological. They just add in the end that "not that you can't measure it, but it actually doesn't exist". I see the utility of the examples, but the very examples used actually has almost no connection with the actual concept of HUP claimed by the QM physicists. Most of the lay people who try to learn HUP with an example gets stuck with a wrong version of HUP, because the example conditions them with ontological realism, while no such thing is advocated by QM (Copenhagen and the Many worlds school).
Everybody uses the “bounce a photon off what you are measuring” analogy, except it isn’t an analogy, it is an accurate description of a kind of *classical* uncertainty. Heisenberg noticed that there is a different kind of uncertainty as he developed a mathematical model for QM.
From this explanation it seems that the uncertainty principle is something due to measurement. Namely: you if you measure the position (thus knowing it with precision) you can not know the velocity. But this is kind of intuitive, and you give the intuition with the tennis ball example. The quantum mechanics uncertainty principle is much more than that: it states that a particle cannot **have** both a precise position and velocity. It is not a matter of "disturbing" the particle, it is that the particle itself (being a wave) don't have a precise position AND velocity. Thus, I would rather emphasize the wave-particle duality (as you do in the second part), rather than on measurement.
Both points of view are completely equivalent and both are a bit inaccurate. The first one emphasizes typical "particle-like" properties, while the second emphasizes "wavelike" properties. But real quantum particles are neither classical particles nor classical waves. They are something new. To be more specific, wavefunctions are not directly measurable. They instead describe what possible measurement results can be gotten from a given physical situation. The wavelike properties are precisely meant to mathematically model the experimentally observed fact that measurement disturbs the quantum system! So it's not really legitimate to point at this mathematical description and say that it is "not disturbance", because the whole is a logically consistent package. Again, the first intuitive description is not "literally" true because we know that a naive hidden variables model like that can't work. However, a model with classical waves is just as "hidden variably" and won't work either. As intuition, either is fine, but it's important to understand where the analogy ends.
I am under the impression that uncertainty is not related how better can we measure it. It's intrinsic. It will be uncertain even if we don't measure it at all. But nice video. 😁
I love the way she teaches. sis you've an amazing way of making things so simple. i was struggling to realise this principle,nobody could make me understand.but now I'm all cleared. very thank you. keep it up. you're amazing!! I'm so happy
Really nice explanation is given in 'The theoretical minimum '.Well, I sent a mail to Dr. Leonard suskind regarding what to choose among Engeering and pure physics to take a deep insight of the Nature both theoretically and mathematically but he didn't reply to that , he would be busy in his book at that time, still waiting for his reply, Can You suggest me Up and Atom, I am a high school student and going to finish my school in 2019. Waiting for your reply eagerly.......
Since you are not getting answers, I'll try: it doesn't much matter exactly what you choose to study; every field will give you insight into how Nature works, and at the same time you will find that every field of knowledge has its limitations. You should follow your desire. Find out what kind of education is most enjoyable for you and follow that. Everyone is different, so you must find your own path.
This video is so far the BEST video on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and your way of explaining things is just amazing. It got me hooked! Thank you very much!!
When it comes to quantum mechanics there are tons of videos explaining all kinds of notions, but your videos beautifully explain the definition so simply.
Of course: Photons are the only way to carry information between particles, forgetting the Bosons for the Weak and Strong Nuclear Forces; they aren’t magnetically charged, so they can touch particles; brilliant
Thank You Jade, for your Heinsenberg Uncertainty Principle Intuition Conjugate Variables ie Position-Momentum explained here Your point seems to be MORE observation time of Mildred going to the store every Sunday implies more certainty that frequency=Once a week ; however you would have to observe Mildred over Infinite time to be 100% certain of Frequency .. .. ergo my conclusion is ALL Statistics is Bayesian Statistics which is simply updating our Bayesian-Prior assumptions ie Machine Learning ; Btw maybe say hi to Andrew Ng/Machine Learning Dept. there at Stanford about this ? I also note an Information Theory subtlety here, it may be that per Nyquist sampling theory we simply need to increase the Data Sampling Frequency Rate and include Mildred's Cat's wave function to produce more accurate predictions sooner/faster for a *CLOSED* system .. Also I've been researching where we ran off the track and I think it's the 1927 Solvay conference with Einstein-De Broglie where we derailed by ignoring "God does not play with dice" Einsteins statement .. LOL did I just say that out loud in public !!? Ok wow so Jade now I'M on the gradient descent of the Heisenberg-Conjugate-Variable of (greater math weather prediction prowess-fewer friends) with you and Jabril so will at least YOU be my friend LOL 😂 .. +UpandAtom +Jade +Jabril Note I'm a shy kitten (aka a De Broglie scaredy cat) and it takes up almost all of my Feynman swagger just to comment here 😊 , so to encourage more maybe you or Jabril can start with a like and a comment here to this comment ?
Well explained . I had watched lots of videos about the uncertainty principle but I have to say it was the best . And I also like the animations . Thanks for making . Keep up the quality content 👍👍👍
What if we tried measuring the position & momentum of an electron near absolute zero temperatures, with the wavelength of a photo just above the Planck Scale, or with Quarks? Gnaw-ledge!
You're awesome. I enjoyed the videos and animations even though I don't understand them all, I enjoyed your positive approach and personality. Thanks for sharing all this beautiful thoughts.
This is the best explanation of uncertainty principle!!! I've seen over 10 videos on this topic but none of them were so easy to understand Thankyou so much❤️
Hey Jade, This video was basic introduction about heisenberg's uncertainity principle. You should also upload videos containing it's other applications. Explaining diffraction of electrons in slits is a beautiful example of this.
This is the most clear and succinct explanation of the uncertainty principle I have ever seen. I've seen many other videos from big TH-camrs too on this exact topic like; PBS Space Time, The Royal Institute, The Science Asylum, Veritasium, Fermilab and so on. Great job explaining it in such a good way! I can truly say I understand it enough to explain it to someone else that wants to know.
We visited Göttingen last weekend, where Bohr, Hund, Born, and also Heisenberg, and many other famous physicists had worked. Was great to follow these historic paths. Btw., even if everything is smeared at about the value of h, this constant of nature will be defined having exactly a value of 6.626 070 15 x 1E-34 Js by exactly 20th May 2019.
That you effect something when you try to measure it. It's not the Uncertainty Principle, it the Observer effect en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics). So things like throwing the ball at the basket ball or high energy light moving the electron isn't the Uncertainty Principle,
ResandOuies, it really is the same thing. There would be no uncertainty principle if measurement didn't fundamentally alter the quantum state, because you could simply make repeated measurements on the same state until you pinned down the relevant quantities. The uncertainty principle is just one of the manifestations of the noncommutativity of quantum mechanics, which itself represents the idea that systems are changed by measurement.
No, it has nothing to do with measurement. Even with a magical measurement tool that didn't effect the system you're measuring at all, you still could not know both position and momentum perfectly. As one gets more precise the other one get less so. By definition
Lots of people ignore that "normally" the uncertainties in speed and position are connected. Using the example you show to establish the speed (that we can suppose be constant) of an object, we measure the time Dt needed to travel a distance a generic Dx with precision in time dt and in space dx. If we multiply the uncertainty of the measured speed by the uncertainty in the position where the object has the measured speed (Dx in first approximation), we get a constant that depends only on dx, dt and V (that we assumed nearly constant).
It's so debated that even without observer effect, you can never measure it, nature prohibits it Even it is possible to measure it without affecting the object we measure, it is impossible because of the mathematics involved
wow! this video was fantastic! I had a fairly good idea about this subject but was hazy about the reason for the disturbance to the electron not any more thanks to you.
Okay, so I've only just now discovered your channel and I just love you. Gonna have to binge watch your videos to catch up. So amazing to see girls not only managing to be both smart AND gorgeous, but also to be able to share that information to others in a very accessible way, free from convolution and thereby introducing more minds to science and inspiring people and evoking the curiosity that resides within us all. Not everyone is able to do that so naturally, and then look damn well good while doing it too! You miss, have my respect and one more subscriber x
Best description of Heisenberg I've ever seen... Finally it's not just "there's this weird quantum stuff" but something obvious enough to grasp... thanks.
The maximum kinetic energy of a photoelectron (or Isolated Planck's Constant) is given by 𝐸(max) = ℎ 𝑓 − 𝑊, where ℎ is the Planck constant, 𝑓 is the frequency of the incident photon, and 𝑊 is the work function (the minimum amount of energy required for an electron to be emitted from a surface). Planck's constant is a dimensioned quantity and so its magnitude can literally be any positive value, it is a measure of how closely two vectors align, in terms of the motion of individual atoms and molecules, a predetermined thermal vibration. it is the thermal energy contained in the motion and vibration of its molecules. The relationship between momentum and wavelength for thermal vibration is given by p = h/λ, and the relationship between energy and frequency of thermal vibration is E = hf, These are the same thermal vibration relations we have for the photon. If it's Absolute it's Thermodynamics...
4:34 ..it's not the carrier wavelength, it's the bandwidth. "delta p" is basically the bandwidth of the wave-function, and delta x is the position extent.
I have been watching TH-cam on physics, astrophysics, and quantum mechanics. Why? Don't ask. I'm not in school nor am I trying to get any degree. I just love getting educated. And even though quantum mechanics is the most unintuitive field of study in the history of man. The uncertainty principle was lost on me. I've watched several (10+) videos trying to get an intuitive explanation to this fundamental law of physics. And Ms. Up and Atom, you did it. For me at least. Thank you!
I have to disappoint you, the explanation she gives here is incorrect. The interaction with the photon does not cause the uncertainty principle, this uncertainty principle exists even when no measurement is done. The mathematical explanation she gives later in the video is the true reason, not the basketball analogy.
Why can we not calculate how the velocity was changed by the impact? (In the video she keeps saying that the high energy light would move the particle and ruin our measurement of velocity, so could we not factor the light wave hitting it, or does it not work because it’s not technically a “measure”)
Great lesson again (also funniest animation)! The time/frequency one always confused me (how knowing the exact time made the frequency (energy) uncertain) but you made that crystal clear, thanks! Also, visualizing position and momentum on the same graph was really helpful
Wow. This was one of the best videos you've made in my opinion. Even beyond the math, your explanations were spot on. Something else I really liked about the video is, with both of your posts in Instagram and Twitter talking about it, I recognized little things in the video like the little German translation in the Heisenberg speak-bubble, and the self portrait of your getting worn out so badly observing that damned Mildred! And this is a bit obscure, but something else I noticed was that, since you set in motion a possible negative outcome (the video not being that good), I was subconsciously worrying about it possibly not acheiving its normal position on the scale of enjoyment. And yet, now that I see it is really good, it makes it even better - since the outcome was much better than part of my expectations. You could say I was uncertain for a while, ha ha. You nailed it once again! (polite golf clap lol)
It is worth mentioning that the uncertainty principle says a little more... The equation is dx.dp > h/2 and not dx.dp >= h/2 This means that dx and dp can never be zero; there is always some uncertainty in both of them.
Great Video!! I just had a few concerns and disagreements that I hope you will take under the correct light😉. Firstly, the intuition that you tried to develop for conjugate variables was slightly flawed because I can extend that to any variable+ time. In fact, the entire scientific method relies on it. Let's say to figure out the law for gravity I perform an experiment. That experiment gives me some result that I note down. I perform thousands of such experiments and see a really nice inverse square pattern. However, if I think according to your conjugate variable thought process, I'll never be able to materialize that pattern because I'd think that what if the next experiment that I perform does not follow this neat pattern at all. Second, the problem with explaining the uncertainty principle through the experimental standpoint, like the basketball or light wavelenght one, is that it always gives the intuition that if I devise a clever enough experiment, I'll be able to work around that principle. It takes away the inherence in the uncertainty principle. However, kudos to you for so many explanations and the de broglie one at the end. Amazingly simple video btw, with enough clarity that middle schoolers could easily understand this. Great job!!
I understood everything what you've said. People don't say why the particles have such properties. You are really good at this. Please make more videos on Quantum Mechanics. I want to crave that knowledge.
00:40min. Note to self (analysis): The issue of Keynesian uncertainty vis a vi what was delivered. Also, speed of thought, and rupture of place of inscription. How fast does it combusts from a lozenge $ x,y,z,q, + e (remainder = 0?) into the linguistic representation etc.
Heisenberg, Schrodinger and Ohm are in a car
They get pulled over. Heisenberg is driving and the cop asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?"
"No, but I know exactly where I am" Heisenberg replies.
The cop says "You were doing 55 in a 35." Heisenberg throws up his hands and shouts "Great! Now I'm lost!"
The cop thinks this is suspicious and orders him to pop open the trunk. He checks it out and says "Do you know you have a dead cat back here?"
"We do now, asshole!" shouts Schrodinger.
The cop moves to arrest them. Ohm resists.
Now the real question: WHO is the cop?
Hints:
The police car is a Toyota Corolla.
The other car is a Tesla Roadster.
haha this was lame but it made me laugh
Hahaha! That's simply too good!!!
David Ruiz, Ohm resists.... hmmm Ohm is a commie, I phone McCarthy immediately
The cartoon faces were extra funny and adorable this video. They made me laugh a couple of times. Well done.
This was a fantastic explainer Jade! The visuals we're on point!
@Squishy Chilli he is into anything that involves learning 😂
I see what you did there
It is amazing how you uncomplicated your videos are...
You take a complex and through the use of those brilliant animations and those simplified explanations...
God, I would love to have you as my Physics teacher!!!
If you understand something you can explain it. The evidence is still complicated. Learning math can be difficult because we have to thicken the connection between the frontal cortex & parietal lobe.
I doubt I'd learn anything. I'd be daydreaming about my beautiful teacher....
I can't concentrate because she's beautiful. I'm just happy being ... 😲
..and that's where my understanding end. Everything else is blah blaaaah, uh? Blah.
Her explanation of superposition was difficult to understand.
Only females can do that.
Yesterday was International Talk Like a Pirate Day and today we have this. The relationship between the days is expressed by an equation involving Walking the Planck’s Constant.
J J right
This video repeats the incredibly common confusion between the measurement problem and the uncertainty principle. They are emphatically NOT the same thing!
The measurement problem is about the fact that you can't measure something without interfering with it. Very simple and easy to understand. The uncertainty principle is about the fact that conjugate variables literally can't both exist as defined quantities at the same time. It's not that we can't accurately measure the momentum of a confined particle, it's that there literally isn't a proper momentum to measure, even in principle. This is much harder to justify and understand but is a very well understood and universally accepted facet of quantum theory. This video gets a little closer to the point toward the end, but doesn't really nail it, and spends at least the first two thirds talking about the wrong topic.
If you're not trained in physics, and often even if you are, this is a very easy mistake to make. Be highly suspicious whenever you see a video or article about the uncertainty principle, even by a usually high quality channel like this, and honestly quite often even coming from an academic. There have been a few occasions in the past when I've received messages from people saying things along the lines of "this video finally made the uncertainty principle click!" Twice from people with actual master's degrees in mathematics and physics. The link they provided made exactly this mistake. Point is, don't feel bad. Even the experts frequently confuse these two (sort of, loosely) related but very different phenomena.
I totally agree with Colin Broderick. I was about to write something similar. The uncertainty principle is not about our incapacity to measure accurately, but about the fact that the product : position time momentum (or the product of two other conjugate quantities) is not precise, it is fuzzy in nature independently of human measurements.
I actually came back to this video because I originally thought it was a good example of the Uncertainty Principle and then realized it is confused with measurement problems.
Thank you.
I agree with Colin
Nokay, but what is meant by uncertainty in position or uncertainty in momentum? How do you assign a number to uncertainty (use an interval maybe)? I have no idea.
Isn't the uncertainty in position and momentum an intrinsic property of the particles wave function and not relying on a measurement through a photon?
Those variables are undefined before mesuare it. It isn't that you are not good enough to mesuare both of them at the same time, it's that mesuare one variable make you unknow more about the oder variable
Johann 0604
Yes it is. In fact, you can know the exact momentum probability distribution. And if you do, you can calculate the exact position probability distribution. Those are just Fourier transforms of each other, like you saw in the video.
They are just like water waves:
If you ask, how high is the wave? Well that depends on which of the waves you measure, because there are many waves running through each other. But when there is only one wave hight possible, well then asking: 'Where is the wave?' makes no sense, cause it's everywhere as high.
A "wavefunction" is just how we conceptualize and describe our knowledge of the state of a particle (or set of particles, with a bit more work). This knowledge has built into it a prediction of what would happen when we made a measurement, so it's really the same thing. It's not possible to separate a wavefunction from the notion of measurement because the wavefunction is only given _meaning_ because of how it describes measurement.
That's correct. This video makes the incredibly common mistake of mixing up or conflating the uncertainty principle and the measurement problem. They are not the same thing, but this is unfortunately an unbelievably common mistake, even from usually high quality sources like this one.
This is wrong. The measurement problem and the uncertainty principle are almost completely unrelated and are most definitely NOT the same thing. The definition of a wave function has literally nothing whatsoever to do with measurement.
This is by far the best and most concise and clear explanaition of the uncertainty principle I've ever heard! And I've spent a loooot of time in college.
Thank you very much Jade!
you're welcome v4 cat!
It's wrong. This video confuses the uncertainty principle with the measurement problem, which is not the same thing and they have very little to do with each other.
@@ColinBroderickMaths No, it's not wrong. At first she explains it the way that Heisenberg himself theorized it (the observer effect). But later in the video she explains the actual wave mechanics behind it (the actual uncertainty principle). It's just delivered in 2 parts.
This is also the best explanation I found so far.
this is a wrong explanation
I think for the 1st time I have understood clean and clearly the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I badly needed this kind of teachers during my college days! But better late than never!! Thank you for this video. I will be waiting for more ☺️
So you're saying quantum mechanics does not require hippie magic? I'm tossing out my rhinestone glasses.
Maybe the reason fewer people came to your party wasn't because of too much study, but because you spent a year in a bush watching an elderly lady.
I'm sure Mildred would come to your birthday party though! (As long as it's not on a Sunday)
Amazingly I loved your intro and basic intuition. It is spot on. (Amazing because many phystubers just copypasta orthodox book knowledge with little insight). But @4:08 was a slight let down. Particles are not "both waves and particle." The duality principle is that we cannot use the wave equation and the particle equations at the same time or situation, you must use one or the other, and that depends on what you want or need to describe/predict. The elements of reality are _always particles._ They are never waves (except gravity waves, which are waves of the only continuum medium that exists, spacetime). Everything else is particle (aka. nontrivial spacetime topology).
The wave-equation describes non-deterministic time evolution, and that is due to closed timelike curves (nontrivial spacetime topology). It is not due to anything called "Hilbert space". Hilbert space is a fictional construct, a mathematical tool. You know this because Hilbert space has massive gauge redundancy that cannot be removed. (See Jacob Barandes' talks and papers) so Hilbert space cannot be physical. It's just a construct, like "the metric components" or "coordinates" are just a construct in GR.
Regarding 3:23, measuring twice is known as the Golden Rule of Carpentry, because measuring a second time is for confirmation that can reduce uncertainty of cutting a piece of wood inaccurately.
Very often people decry the first "disturbance analysis" of the uncertainty principle, suggesting that the second point of view (which involves the Fourier transform) is the better one. I like that you presented both in equal footing, because they really are in equal footing: a wavefunction is nothing but a mathematical representation of a particle's state that has built into it that kind of disturbance analysis. The fact that position and momentum are conjugate variables (that is, that they Fourier transform into each other) wouldn't make any sense _unless_ we knew that position measurements disturb momentum measurements and vice versa.
Both intuitions carry a risk though, and that is the risk of imagining that a quantum particle is just like a classical particle or just like a classical wave. Really it is neither, and we know that any naive classical hidden variables model (like one suggested by either picture) wouldn't work.
Overall this is a very nice video! I would just like to leave a couple small corrections about the slide around the 7 and a half minute mark:
1. Energy and time are not exactly complementary properties because there is no observable (no Hermitian operator) corresponding to measurements of time. In nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, time is just a parameter. The so-called "energy-time uncertainty relation" is actually a bit subtler than most quantum mechanical uncertainty relations. John Baez has an excellent discussion on the subject at math(dot)ucr(dot)edu/home/baez/uncertainty.html.
2. Entanglement and coherence are not canonically conjugate either, for the reason that neither is really a well-defined observable. We say "entanglement" and we say "coherence" mostly like adjectives, meant to describe a given physical preparation rather than be actual quantum mechanical observables. For a given system it may be possible to define observables which correspond to intuitive ideas of "entanglement" and "coherence", and those observables may be conjugate. However, depending on how you define the terms and how you think about the system in detail, you may find that an opposite idea is true! See e.g. 1502.05876. All in all, I think the terms are just too vague to be assigned a precise conjugacy relation.
Vacuum Diagrams, thank you for (what seems to me) a significant contribution to the discussion. I'm relieved to learn from you that the "disturbance" intuition is just as correct as the Fourier-style explanation. Back at Berkeley, almost 50 years ago, I remember concocting an intuitive explanation for myself which was practically identical to the one Up and Atom described here using a basketball and tennis ball. My thought experiment involved rolling marbles of lower mass to report back on the position of heavier marbles. Later I read that was not a good way to explain the uncertainty principle. Now you say my line of thought was not too bad after all. Thanks!
You make a good point, only problem is, I don't understand it.
I understood the video though! ;)
@@RalphDratman oh but, if your analogy is in a Newtonian world, as suggested, knowing the start and end conditions (position, angle, velocity) of the cue ball allows you to back calculate the position of the target ball at impact, the momentum imparted to it and it's direction and speed of travel thereafter. Assuming you know it's mass. So the analogy presented here seems to assume that I wouldn't know how do that. But I do for macro scale Newtonian behaviour. So it's not an example of the uncertainty principle.
"Next time you think you can have your cake and eat it too, you probably can't."
-Jade the motivational speaker, 2018
😎
Isn't there some quantum state a cake could be in that would allow it to be in my mouth as well as in my hands?
That's why I only eat other's cake.
So I can eat the cake without having it? I hope this applies to money too
@@upandatom Thank You Jade, for your Heinsenberg Uncertainty Principle Intuition Conjugate Variables ie Velocity-Momentum explained here >> Your point seems to be MORE observation time of Mildred going to the store every Sunday implies more certainty that frequency=Once a week ; however you would have to observe Mildred over Infinite time to be 100% certain of Frequency ..
.. ergo my conclusion is ALL Statistics is Bayesian Statistics which is simply updating our Bayesian-Prior assumptions ie Machine Learning ;
Btw maybe say hi to Andrew Ng/Machine Learning Dept. there at Stanford about this ?
I also note an Information Theory subtlety here, it may be that per Nyquist sampling theory we simply need to increase the Data Sampling Frequency Rate and include Mildred's Cat's wave function to produce more accurate predictions sooner/faster for a *CLOSED* system ..
Also I've been researching where we ran off the track and I think it's the 1927 Solvay conference with Einstein-De Broglie where we derailed by ignoring "God does not play with dice" Einsteins statement
.. LOL did I just say that out loud in public !!?
Ok wow so Jade now I'M on the gradient descent of the Heisenberg-Conjugate-Variable of (greater math weather prediction prowess-fewer friends) with you and Jabril so will at least YOU be my friend LOL 😂 ..
+UpandAtom +Jade +Jabril
Note I'm a shy kitten (aka a De Broglie scaredy cat) and it takes up almost all of my Feynman swagger just to comment here 😊 , so to encourage more maybe you or Jabril can start with a like and a comment here to this comment ?
I want to point out something. The uncertainty principle is not based on the "experimental limits" of "measuring" where the electron was or how fast it's going. It's much more deeper than that. A good way to think of it is cardinal directions. Assume that "property x" can be one of "North", "South", "East" or "West", and that "property y" can be one of "North-East", "North-West", "South-East" or "South-West". You can't sanely say that you know the exact value of BOTH properties at the same time.. Because, a direction can't be North and North-East at the same time, as being North-East is by definition a superposition of being North and being East. And being North can be defined as being a superposition of being North-East and North-West.
Knowing "property x" is BY DEFINITION not knowing "property y".
Same goes for QM.. if you look into the math of definite-position and definite-momentum wavefunctions.. You'll realize how no wavefunction can accomplish both: having a well-defined position and a well defined momentum at the same time.. You can't even start to begin to imagine the idea of the presence of such wavefunction.. It's not that you're not allowed to know both.. It's much deeper than that.. It's that trying to know both doesn't make any kind of sense.. Like trying to be 100% North and 100% North-East at the same time.
Position and Momentum, in QM, are very deeply linked in a way that forbids them to sanely exist with each other the way we're used to in classical mechanics. Having a definite position, by its very own definition, requires having no definite momentum, and vice versa.
Wait a moment, so when I'll have no birthday party, i should get, like, the ultimate grades!
that's it!
I'm so glad your channel exists! Your videos are amazing, keep it up :)
Intuition is so important when learning difficult concepts. Thanks for sharing this video. I hope you make more videos about how to intuitively understand more complex areas of physics.
OMG I've studied economics my whole life and never had a single physics class, and I still got the idea! Excellent video with amazing (and hilarious) animations! THANK YOU!
So glad I decided to check out your channel from physics girl. I looooove your style!!!
I've been working on this stuff for years, and I only discovered this chan a few weeks ago. The TH-cam suggestion bot isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Your knowledge, accent, and everything makes this whole video better.
Great vid!
So, I'm studying the history of Science. I had no idea that I wanted to do this until I took a class, and it COMPLETELY changed the course of my academic career. The problem is, I have zero science back round. I didn't even take physics in high school. So here I am trying to learn complicated theory from scratch. I have been doing countless hours of studying to familiarize myself with basic theory to be a better science historian in training. This is the absolute BEST video I have seen on Heisenberg. You break it down wonderfully. Thank you.
you make physics entertaining and fun love it
The high energy photon's face was absolutely hilarious!! Keep up the amazing work Jade.
Damn those animations are smooth af
Honey, from an old A P Chemistry teacher you are outstanding. Your videos are so well thought out I am embarrassed how poorly I taught the Heisenberg Principle. I did teach so many students like you and I miss them so. never retire as you will regret it.
The only uncertainty I am left with is, if photons have eyes, how do they see? A true conundrum!
Mario G. Cardiel
there is no such thing as a photon!
@@johnnym6700 they are to 100% real
@@gamerstar1823 Imaginary elementary particle! in other words made up.
Even better is to imagine you are traveling along with a photon (which normally move at velocity c in a vacuum). Then time does not pass, meaning that you are everywhere at once.
@@david203 Photons don't exist neither does c. All imaginary fabricated science fiction. (c is most likely zero - images don't travel in space - you see everything in real time)
I really like your videos. coming from a more abstract understanding of the uncertainty principle using fourier transforms, it's nice to see some more intuitive examples.
Jade, you definetly rock at vulgarization. And I love the misadventures of your cartoonish Jade.
haha she has a much more interesting life than I do
You are an absolutely amazing teacher and I’m so grateful for your videos. You make everything seem so easy. Thank you!
Great work Jade.
But the problem with most of the explanations with examples of HUP online is that they actually explain Epistemological HUP, not the Ontological HUP, which the QM physicists claim. Afaik, Every example you can think of to explain HUP is only Epistemological. They just add in the end that "not that you can't measure it, but it actually doesn't exist". I see the utility of the examples, but the very examples used actually has almost no connection with the actual concept of HUP claimed by the QM physicists. Most of the lay people who try to learn HUP with an example gets stuck with a wrong version of HUP, because the example conditions them with ontological realism, while no such thing is advocated by QM (Copenhagen and the Many worlds school).
She didn't like your comment...haha
Everybody uses the “bounce a photon off what you are measuring” analogy, except it isn’t an analogy, it is an accurate description of a kind of *classical* uncertainty. Heisenberg noticed that there is a different kind of uncertainty as he developed a mathematical model for QM.
From this explanation it seems that the uncertainty principle is something due to measurement. Namely: you if you measure the position (thus knowing it with precision) you can not know the velocity. But this is kind of intuitive, and you give the intuition with the tennis ball example. The quantum mechanics uncertainty principle is much more than that: it states that a particle cannot **have** both a precise position and velocity. It is not a matter of "disturbing" the particle, it is that the particle itself (being a wave) don't have a precise position AND velocity. Thus, I would rather emphasize the wave-particle duality (as you do in the second part), rather than on measurement.
Both points of view are completely equivalent and both are a bit inaccurate. The first one emphasizes typical "particle-like" properties, while the second emphasizes "wavelike" properties. But real quantum particles are neither classical particles nor classical waves. They are something new.
To be more specific, wavefunctions are not directly measurable. They instead describe what possible measurement results can be gotten from a given physical situation. The wavelike properties are precisely meant to mathematically model the experimentally observed fact that measurement disturbs the quantum system! So it's not really legitimate to point at this mathematical description and say that it is "not disturbance", because the whole is a logically consistent package.
Again, the first intuitive description is not "literally" true because we know that a naive hidden variables model like that can't work. However, a model with classical waves is just as "hidden variably" and won't work either. As intuition, either is fine, but it's important to understand where the analogy ends.
Undoubtedly the best video of Heisenberg principle on TH-cam I found so far. I am more than amazed. Great work!!
I am under the impression that uncertainty is not related how better can we measure it. It's intrinsic. It will be uncertain even if we don't measure it at all.
But nice video. 😁
I love the way she teaches.
sis you've an amazing way of making things so simple.
i was struggling to realise this principle,nobody could make me understand.but now I'm all cleared.
very thank you.
keep it up.
you're amazing!! I'm so happy
This video is actually about Observer effect. It never gets to explain Uncertainty principle. Maybe someone could make it (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)
I watched like 5 videos to understand this principle but finally, this video helped
Really nice explanation is given in 'The theoretical minimum '.Well, I sent a mail to Dr. Leonard suskind regarding what to choose among Engeering and pure physics to take a deep insight of the Nature both theoretically and mathematically but he didn't reply to that , he would be busy in his book at that time, still waiting for his reply,
Can You suggest me Up and Atom,
I am a high school student and going to finish my school in 2019.
Waiting for your reply eagerly.......
Since you are not getting answers, I'll try: it doesn't much matter exactly what you choose to study; every field will give you insight into how Nature works, and at the same time you will find that every field of knowledge has its limitations. You should follow your desire. Find out what kind of education is most enjoyable for you and follow that. Everyone is different, so you must find your own path.
This video is so far the BEST video on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and your way of explaining things is just amazing. It got me hooked! Thank you very much!!
When it comes to quantum mechanics there are tons of videos explaining all kinds of notions, but your videos beautifully explain the definition so simply.
Of course: Photons are the only way to carry information between particles, forgetting the Bosons for the Weak and Strong Nuclear Forces; they aren’t magnetically charged, so they can touch particles; brilliant
Thank You Jade, for your Heinsenberg Uncertainty Principle Intuition Conjugate Variables ie Position-Momentum explained here Your point seems to be MORE observation time of Mildred going to the store every Sunday implies more certainty that frequency=Once a week ; however you would have to observe Mildred over Infinite time to be 100% certain of Frequency ..
.. ergo my conclusion is ALL Statistics is Bayesian Statistics which is simply updating our Bayesian-Prior assumptions ie Machine Learning ;
Btw maybe say hi to Andrew Ng/Machine Learning Dept. there at Stanford about this ?
I also note an Information Theory subtlety here, it may be that per Nyquist sampling theory we simply need to increase the Data Sampling Frequency Rate and include Mildred's Cat's wave function to produce more accurate predictions sooner/faster for a *CLOSED* system ..
Also I've been researching where we ran off the track and I think it's the 1927 Solvay conference with Einstein-De Broglie where we derailed by ignoring "God does not play with dice" Einsteins statement
.. LOL did I just say that out loud in public !!?
Ok wow so Jade now I'M on the gradient descent of the Heisenberg-Conjugate-Variable of (greater math weather prediction prowess-fewer friends) with you and Jabril so will at least YOU be my friend LOL 😂 ..
+UpandAtom +Jade +Jabril
Note I'm a shy kitten (aka a De Broglie scaredy cat) and it takes up almost all of my Feynman swagger just to comment here 😊 , so to encourage more maybe you or Jabril can start with a like and a comment here to this comment ?
Who is here after Deepali ma'am asked us to watch this video #UEM Jaipur
I am
Here we go
Well explained . I had watched lots of videos about the uncertainty principle but I have to say it was the best . And I also like the animations . Thanks for making . Keep up the quality content 👍👍👍
aww thank you!
What if we tried measuring the position & momentum of an electron near absolute zero temperatures, with the wavelength of a photo just above the Planck Scale, or with Quarks?
Gnaw-ledge!
What if we glue the electron to the tip of a heavy object. It can't move. Meaning it's position doesn't change and it's speed is zero.
You're awesome. I enjoyed the videos and animations even though I don't understand them all, I enjoyed your positive approach and personality. Thanks for sharing all this beautiful thoughts.
Heisenberg may have discovered this.
This is the best explanation of uncertainty principle!!! I've seen over 10 videos on this topic but none of them were so easy to understand Thankyou so much❤️
DAMN YOU MILDRED AND YOUR PROBABLY CONSISTENT SHOPPING HABITS , also your drawings are getting better and better each video
i agree DAMN YOU MIDLRED! and thanks n_n
*when you don't have many friends and also don't have amazing grades*
Big Oof
Hey Jade,
This video was basic introduction about heisenberg's uncertainity principle. You should also upload videos containing it's other applications. Explaining diffraction of electrons in slits is a beautiful example of this.
Truth said the more i dig deep into my physics undergrad the less social life gets
😞
Your animations are really great, and I love the details such as in the bush part.
The old lady is going to hit the bars barhopping🤐😳🙊😵😉😉😉🤫🤫🤫👊👍👏😱
haha oh that Mildred
@@upandatom You know it - just cause Mildred has snow on the roof doesn't mean she doesn't have a fire lit inside! 😂
This is the most clear and succinct explanation of the uncertainty principle I have ever seen. I've seen many other videos from big TH-camrs too on this exact topic like; PBS Space Time, The Royal Institute, The Science Asylum, Veritasium, Fermilab and so on. Great job explaining it in such a good way! I can truly say I understand it enough to explain it to someone else that wants to know.
We visited Göttingen last weekend, where Bohr, Hund, Born, and also Heisenberg, and many other famous physicists had worked. Was great to follow these historic paths.
Btw., even if everything is smeared at about the value of h, this constant of nature will be defined having exactly a value of 6.626 070 15 x 1E-34 Js by exactly 20th May 2019.
That's interesting - but what is the criterion used? Seems they'd have to change some other prototype dimension for that
I'm sorry but fairly sure your intuitive explanation is the observer effect, not the Uncertainty Principle
what do you mean?
It's the same thing.
That you effect something when you try to measure it. It's not the Uncertainty Principle, it the Observer effect en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics). So things like throwing the ball at the basket ball or high energy light moving the electron isn't the Uncertainty Principle,
ResandOuies, it really is the same thing. There would be no uncertainty principle if measurement didn't fundamentally alter the quantum state, because you could simply make repeated measurements on the same state until you pinned down the relevant quantities. The uncertainty principle is just one of the manifestations of the noncommutativity of quantum mechanics, which itself represents the idea that systems are changed by measurement.
No, it has nothing to do with measurement. Even with a magical measurement tool that didn't effect the system you're measuring at all, you still could not know both position and momentum perfectly. As one gets more precise the other one get less so. By definition
You are my greatest physics mentor ever meet in my life... Good explained...
Gotta admire the dedication of Mildred watcher :-)
Back in school when i studied my teacher made this sooo booringg..now im also impressed with the whole thing...thank you...❤️
You are a cupcake 😉
Lots of people ignore that "normally" the uncertainties in speed and position are connected.
Using the example you show to establish the speed (that we can suppose be constant) of an object, we measure the time Dt needed to travel a distance a generic Dx with precision in time dt and in space dx. If we multiply the uncertainty of the measured speed by the uncertainty in the position where the object has the measured speed (Dx in first approximation), we get a constant that depends only on dx, dt and V (that we assumed nearly constant).
Ur misleading 😄, it's observer effect
It's so debated that even without observer effect, you can never measure it, nature prohibits it
Even it is possible to measure it without affecting the object we measure, it is impossible because of the mathematics involved
Thank you for the vivid explaination on uncertainty principle.
The most best explanation ever on this topic , I was following a quantum book by Manjit and with this video it makes clearer then ever
Should have watched this video before, Well explained and now I get why we can only either know an electrons position or momentum and not.Thank you,
wow! this video was fantastic! I had a fairly good idea about this subject but was hazy about the reason for the disturbance to the electron not any more thanks to you.
Okay, so I've only just now discovered your channel and I just love you. Gonna have to binge watch your videos to catch up. So amazing to see girls not only managing to be both smart AND gorgeous, but also to be able to share that information to others in a very accessible way, free from convolution and thereby introducing more minds to science and inspiring people and evoking the curiosity that resides within us all. Not everyone is able to do that so naturally, and then look damn well good while doing it too! You miss, have my respect and one more subscriber x
Best description of Heisenberg I've ever seen... Finally it's not just "there's this weird quantum stuff" but something obvious enough to grasp... thanks.
The maximum kinetic energy of a photoelectron (or Isolated Planck's Constant) is given by 𝐸(max) = ℎ 𝑓 − 𝑊, where ℎ is the Planck constant, 𝑓 is the frequency of the incident photon, and 𝑊 is the work function (the minimum amount of energy required for an electron to be emitted from a surface). Planck's constant is a dimensioned quantity and so its magnitude can literally be any positive value, it is a measure of how closely two vectors align, in terms of the motion of individual atoms and molecules, a predetermined thermal vibration. it is the thermal energy contained in the motion and vibration of its molecules. The relationship between momentum and wavelength for thermal vibration is given by p = h/λ, and the relationship between energy and frequency of thermal vibration is E = hf, These are the same thermal vibration relations we have for the photon. If it's Absolute it's Thermodynamics...
4:34 ..it's not the carrier wavelength, it's the bandwidth. "delta p" is basically the bandwidth of the wave-function, and delta x is the position extent.
Extremely best analogy and explanation in detail
I have been watching TH-cam on physics, astrophysics, and quantum mechanics. Why? Don't ask. I'm not in school nor am I trying to get any degree. I just love getting educated. And even though quantum mechanics is the most unintuitive field of study in the history of man. The uncertainty principle was lost on me. I've watched several (10+) videos trying to get an intuitive explanation to this fundamental law of physics. And Ms. Up and Atom, you did it. For me at least. Thank you!
I have to disappoint you, the explanation she gives here is incorrect. The interaction with the photon does not cause the uncertainty principle, this uncertainty principle exists even when no measurement is done. The mathematical explanation she gives later in the video is the true reason, not the basketball analogy.
I am so happy that I found this channel. The animations and the simple ways that you explain these topics is awesome. Thank you!
i have been starring at my physics book for hour but i couldnt get a single thing.... best explanation on this topic so far and thank you so much
“It’s not like physics turned me into a mega bitch” I’m dead
I've watched this multiple times and it's still at the top of my feed!?! How does this only have 26k views? It's a really good video
This is the best explanation of this that I have observed a great job
Why can we not calculate how the velocity was changed by the impact? (In the video she keeps saying that the high energy light would move the particle and ruin our measurement of velocity, so could we not factor the light wave hitting it, or does it not work because it’s not technically a “measure”)
You would need to precisely know the momentum before the impact... Which, we couldn't do.
Your story put a really nice story into the gauge theory quantum nature. The fuzzy middle.
I’m just learning about wave particle duality and the uncertainty principle in my chem class! This was so cool to see !
Another great one! I really appreciate the work you do on your videos 👍🏽
Your way of explaining is amazing
A beautiful speaker + very nice animation = learning😊
Thank you ma'am for this one😊😊🙏🙏
The best explaination ever. Especially the basket and tennis ball.
Great lesson again (also funniest animation)! The time/frequency one always confused me (how knowing the exact time made the frequency (energy) uncertain) but you made that crystal clear, thanks! Also, visualizing position and momentum on the same graph was really helpful
Wow. This was one of the best videos you've made in my opinion. Even beyond the math, your explanations were spot on. Something else I really liked about the video is, with both of your posts in Instagram and Twitter talking about it, I recognized little things in the video like the little German translation in the Heisenberg speak-bubble, and the self portrait of your getting worn out so badly observing that damned Mildred!
And this is a bit obscure, but something else I noticed was that, since you set in motion a possible negative outcome (the video not being that good), I was subconsciously worrying about it possibly not acheiving its normal position on the scale of enjoyment. And yet, now that I see it is really good, it makes it even better - since the outcome was much better than part of my expectations. You could say I was uncertain for a while, ha ha.
You nailed it once again! (polite golf clap lol)
thank you so much john! you certainly have a very keen eye for detail ;)
Thank you. That intuition explanation helped me.
It is worth mentioning that the uncertainty principle says a little more...
The equation is
dx.dp > h/2
and not
dx.dp >= h/2
This means that dx and dp can never be zero; there is always some uncertainty in both of them.
Great Video!! I just had a few concerns and disagreements that I hope you will take under the correct light😉.
Firstly, the intuition that you tried to develop for conjugate variables was slightly flawed because I can extend that to any variable+ time. In fact, the entire scientific method relies on it. Let's say to figure out the law for gravity I perform an experiment. That experiment gives me some result that I note down. I perform thousands of such experiments and see a really nice inverse square pattern. However, if I think according to your conjugate variable thought process, I'll never be able to materialize that pattern because I'd think that what if the next experiment that I perform does not follow this neat pattern at all.
Second, the problem with explaining the uncertainty principle through the experimental standpoint, like the basketball or light wavelenght one, is that it always gives the intuition that if I devise a clever enough experiment, I'll be able to work around that principle. It takes away the inherence in the uncertainty principle. However, kudos to you for so many explanations and the de broglie one at the end.
Amazingly simple video btw, with enough clarity that middle schoolers could easily understand this. Great job!!
I'm certain that this is the best vid about the uncertainty principle.
Went through all videos on TH-cam. The only one that made me understand it perfectly and actually get some idea that is understandable 😊🥰
I understood everything what you've said. People don't say why the particles have such properties. You are really good at this. Please make more videos on Quantum Mechanics. I want to crave that knowledge.
i have been trying to find a starting point for my grad school journey and just have given it to me. Kudos.
This is the best video on this topic I've seen
00:40min. Note to self (analysis): The issue of Keynesian uncertainty vis a vi what was delivered. Also, speed of thought, and rupture of place of inscription. How fast does it combusts from a lozenge $ x,y,z,q, + e (remainder = 0?) into the linguistic representation etc.