The Quantum Wavefunction Explained

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 พ.ย. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 200

  • @JavierSalcedoC
    @JavierSalcedoC 3 ปีที่แล้ว +471

    I don't always make jokes about Quantum Physics, but when I do, I don't

    • @dollyogatis5008
      @dollyogatis5008 3 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      Oh you had me laughing😂😂😂

    • @asanzmart
      @asanzmart 3 ปีที่แล้ว +12

      @@avw5kt Goood joke, but may be you mean
      1/ sqr(2) x|good> + 1/sqr(2) x |bad>

    • @ABDxLM
      @ABDxLM 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Bro I am in 10th standard and I want to be a quantum physicist
      Plz tell me what are steps

    • @nope69q
      @nope69q 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      *probably*

    • @fruitofthepoisonoustree6562
      @fruitofthepoisonoustree6562 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      You’re joke is actually one of the funniest.

  • @pkang27
    @pkang27 3 ปีที่แล้ว +46

    My word, I've watched many introductory lay-men quantum physics videos on TH-cam, but this one explains the wave function so clearly and provides insight into the deeper details. Thanks so much!

  • @ParthGChannel
    @ParthGChannel 3 ปีที่แล้ว +75

    This is so nicely explained!

    • @mayankmohit1261
      @mayankmohit1261 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Nicely as yours😄

    • @ishaanvohra2311
      @ishaanvohra2311 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      First Sabine and now Parth! The physics youtubers are all showing up one by one

  • @melm4251
    @melm4251 3 ปีที่แล้ว +39

    Glad to see you pointing out superposition isn't just a quantum phenomena... so many people get hung up on the idea but it's so basic, especially when you talk about it using water or music waves

    • @gardenhead92
      @gardenhead92 3 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      And neither is the uncertainty principal! These concepts are so much easier to understand once you realize they apply to all waves. The only purely quantum phenomenon that I can think of off the top of my head is wavefunction collapse (i.e. Born rule).

    • @melm4251
      @melm4251 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      @@gardenhead92 yeah i remember seeing a 3blue1brown video on this talking about radar as a classical example of uncertainty.. something about fourier transforms and conjugate variables (it's been a while haha)

    • @yash1152
      @yash1152 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@gardenhead92 yeah i was thinking same, and maybe quantum entanglement too??

  • @sebastianclarke2441
    @sebastianclarke2441 3 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    Well done on another beautifully detailed yet concise window into the inner workings of nature. One of your finest yet!

  • @QuantumAD09
    @QuantumAD09 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    This is what I was looking for, easy diagram easy explanation. This is the best video I could find 🎉🎉🎉.

  • @hritakshtripathi3701
    @hritakshtripathi3701 3 ปีที่แล้ว +20

    i haven't studied anything like this yet, but the video has me on my guards

    • @yash1152
      @yash1152 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      what does that mean?? "caught me on my guards"

    • @megamanx466
      @megamanx466 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @@yash1152 "Has me on guard" is an English/American expression roughly meaning: to feel leery or suspicious about *or* to put up one's mental defense in anticipation of an event.
      Another similar expression is to "brace yourself" or "brace myself" roughly meaning: to anchor your mental state in anticipation of (typically) bad news. Sort of when you hear on a TV show or movie where the characters say, "Brace for impact!"(but instead it would be in a psychological sense).😅

    • @yash1152
      @yash1152 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@megamanx466 ahwww, ohkay. I sort of knew that sense, but couldnt see how that fit here. so thought to ask. But now on reading it, it makes sense. Likely that the OP/person got intimidated from the subject right!!??

    • @megamanx466
      @megamanx466 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@yash1152 Indeed, that's the way it looks. 😅

    • @yash1152
      @yash1152 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@megamanx466 lol yeah. i can see how it seems intimidating. But now that i have studied the oscillations and (mechanical) wave phenonmena at even just high school level - this type of content is much much easier to follow.... (i already knew complex numbers, so, yeah, that helped too obv - and both these things are just Class XI-th content)
      I hope that OP doesnt develop a fear for this subject *just by seeing some random video/article not intended as an introduction* to beginners (or any subject by extension), for all the beauty and intricacies, excitements and surprises it may contain.
      Plus, it's not *thaaaatt hard* to have the basics from an introductory material.

  • @benco804
    @benco804 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    These are best videos on quantum physics.

  • @imamastermind
    @imamastermind 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Thank you for making this video! I've been trying to understand this concept since a week! Now its all clear!

  • @mrcooki3monster928
    @mrcooki3monster928 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Thank you for explaining the little individual signs and symbols!

  • @Kumurajiva
    @Kumurajiva 3 ปีที่แล้ว +16

    This is so fabulous! 👏

  • @kavishgupta1710
    @kavishgupta1710 20 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

    Why wave functions are complex valued? Are the matter waves and the wave function the same thing?

  • @snappycattimesten
    @snappycattimesten 3 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    Back on form with this video. Cheers.

  • @Mathcambo
    @Mathcambo 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    The teacher is really good. I will learn from. I will make a video following the teacher to share with everyone.

  • @Chunat
    @Chunat 3 ปีที่แล้ว +24

    Would you please post about optics/photonics too? I'm learning a lot of stuffs in a very clear way than I did in the classroom for hours and hours some years back. Thank you so much!

  • @michaelzap8528
    @michaelzap8528 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Brilliant. Just as i thought what wave function is. It confirms th idea hanging around my brain for long time.

  • @MaliceInWonderland0248
    @MaliceInWonderland0248 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    It's rare to find a TH-camr who's good good advertisements

  • @brianegendorf2023
    @brianegendorf2023 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    I always describe it as, imagine a single math equation that is basically a recipe book that explains how to make every possible recipe in every possible kitchen, using every possible oven, at every possible temperature, at every possible cooking time, using every ingredient possible in every container possible, and every possible spice.

    • @schmetterling4477
      @schmetterling4477 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Not the worst explanation, actually.

  • @Dileswarsahu2100
    @Dileswarsahu2100 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Always the best 👍💯 work on physics is in Dos

  • @radha94
    @radha94 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    I have a question is Gravity a Fictitious force could u please make a video about it??????????????????????????

  • @ThePicManiac
    @ThePicManiac 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Such nice animations, good work ♥️

  • @СергейЯкушев-ъ3д
    @СергейЯкушев-ъ3д 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Perfect explanation! Thanx for clarity

  • @floydmaseda
    @floydmaseda 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Does a wavefunction actually have to be C^2, or can it satisfy Schrodinger's equation as a distribution? Particularly if the potential function is not continuous (e.g. a dirac delta potential), why would we expect the wavefunction itself to be continuous?

  • @satorimystic
    @satorimystic 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The Aether "wobbles" AND wiggles ... It is, simply ... THE MEDIUM where ALL Energy, Frequency, and Vibration dwell in Time ... Motion in Time through the Aether is 'all that MATTERS'. 👁️👁️

  • @e11eohe11e
    @e11eohe11e 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    I wish I had this video during my first graduate class in complex analysis...

  • @kvantanet2297
    @kvantanet2297 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Great video!

  • @kuznip
    @kuznip ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Great explanation. But I think, it's not correct for 1:49. While k controls wavelength (and thus -frequency, as well!), the omega controls PHASE (and that's correctly shown on chart) and not the frequency.

  • @HebaruSan
    @HebaruSan 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Seems like we should be paying more attention to the "different mathematical operations on the wave function for each one" and how somethings in the real world might be performing those operations on something that obeys the Schrödinger equation.

  • @UROOZFATIMA190
    @UROOZFATIMA190 10 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    GREAT.....🔥🔥⚡

  • @akmarals1718
    @akmarals1718 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Thank you so much!

  • @dipanshigupta8593
    @dipanshigupta8593 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Outstanding

  • @drewhanna9057
    @drewhanna9057 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I think what would help me to understand this would be to know why we need or want to have a wave function. Understanding purpose would help me to understand what the wave function is better.

    • @schmetterling4477
      @schmetterling4477 หลายเดือนก่อน

      We want to calculate the physical behavior of quantum mechanical systems like atoms. One way to do that is the wave function. There are other ways that work better, depending on the kind of system we are looking at. Mathematically the wave function approach is probably the easiest.

  • @kathleenanderson5782
    @kathleenanderson5782 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Hi Dominic, is there a scalar machine that you would recommend for remote healing? 🙏♥️

  • @woosnext
    @woosnext 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    thank you. I always wondered what goes up and down in these waves. I‘m still confused but less, I guess

  • @zakirhussain-js9ku
    @zakirhussain-js9ku ปีที่แล้ว

    A quantum wavefunction is a mathematical equation which describes probable path & position of a particle in motion. It combine properties of particle & properties of its associated wave. When particle stops its motion or is observed wave associated with the particle dissipates/disperses leaving the particle alone & wavefunction collapses.

  • @gregtechno506
    @gregtechno506 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Where in a 3d box would we most likely find a particle? How do you calculate this and what info do you need to do so

    • @schmetterling4477
      @schmetterling4477 หลายเดือนก่อน

      In the ground state near the center. You need to solve the Schroedinger equation for a closed box. For a rectangular box the result is the product of three periodic functions with zeros on the walls. For a more general box shape it gets very hard very quickly.

  • @dosomething3
    @dosomething3 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Terrific video

  • @lambda4931
    @lambda4931 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    To find a particle at a given location implies that particles are not in motion. Is this true. I’ve always imagined particles as always moving. Also, when is it necessary to know where a particle exactly is? It seems the distance from one location within a wave function to another would be extremely small. When does knowing it’s position matter?

    • @TheGenerationGapPodcast
      @TheGenerationGapPodcast 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Note that the location is a probability. It can be zero. Meaning tghe location be wrong. We use the wave function to get the probability of finding the particle at a point.

  • @jeanblique389
    @jeanblique389 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    At 0'42'', you said that electromagnetic wave-function are real and have a medium, contrary to quantum wave-function. But aren't electromagnetic wave just quantum wave of photon ?

  • @josenova1370
    @josenova1370 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    I have a question sorta unrelated to this topic.
    What even are the properties of elementary particles like spin or strangeness. I know it’s a word used to describe a property and that the particle is not actually spinning, but exactly is it trying to represent?

  • @thuynguyenthidieu2074
    @thuynguyenthidieu2074 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I'd like to hear some exposition on what is meant by "finding a particle". I mean I want to check my speculation that the "particle" isn't that material/physical either.
    Like, it is said they do away with particles in Bohmian mechanics. And I want to hear another way of talking about it here.
    I also guess I can connect with quantum information from there.

    • @yash1152
      @yash1152 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Bohmian mechanics - oh god, yet another thing.
      Classical, Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, Hybrid of L and H, and now Bohmian.
      Quantum too already

    • @yash1152
      @yash1152 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      th-cam.com/video/mqofuYCz9gs/w-d-xo.html ohhhhh, Bohmian Mechanics = pilot wave theory. ohkay, got it. 👍

    • @jorgepeterbarton
      @jorgepeterbarton 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      I thought bohmian mechanics was trying to put more certainty into realism.
      Like there is an actual wave and there are actual particles riding/pushed by such wave.
      Although perhaps modern interpretations of pilot wave might suggest a non-real wave or informational wave like the particle just had to know how to move by having knowledge of what a wave /would/ do

    • @bitesofmathematics4356
      @bitesofmathematics4356 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Well, I'll give it a go. You could go with Richard Feynman here : energy comes in lumps. So 'forces' become discrete transactions amongst various quantum fields. You change your language though eg. 'particle creation' = a field goes to a higher energy level, and 'a particle is destroyed' = the field goes down to a lower level. Hence your desired quantum information is in the field values. A 'particle' is shown to you, the experimenter, by the ( appropriately amplified ) reception of an energy lump. It's a bit like talking of bank balances and their changes, while ignoring the actual written cheques. As long as you keep the bit where each transaction has an associated probability amplitude ( suitably normalised ) then it's the same either way.
      [aside]For me the difficult part isn't whether you call it 'discrete transactions' or 'particles', but that some transactions which can never be seen ( so called virtual particles ) have been shown as necessary to explain findings. For example to explain the magnetic moment of the electron requires a calculation that includes the electron transacting with itself via virtual entities, and that predicted value agrees phenomenally with experimental findings. Thus it's hard to ignore that 'sum over histories' approach to interactions.[/aside]
      Anyway we never see electrons. What we have is an electron as a model of interaction with our macroscopic devices. We assume a chain of events from the small scale to the large in order to be consistent. For instance the Higgs Boson discovery : where what was actually done was to deduce from a pattern of energy transfers in the LHC apparatus that a certain lump of energy ( or mass equivalent ) existed briefly.
      I do hope this helps. :-)

  • @cristianmaclachlan2036
    @cristianmaclachlan2036 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Me encantaría tener este contenido en idioma español algún día 😔 saludos desde Argentina 🇦🇷

    • @yuritardid7761
      @yuritardid7761 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Date un voltio tiene muchos vídeos de mecánica cuántica, tal vez eso ayude? Pero yo no veo esos videos porque mi español no es tan bueno, saludos desde Estados Unidos!

    • @megamanx466
      @megamanx466 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @MIGUEL ANGEL CORRALES LUNA Indeed. There should be someone on TH-cam that can understand and take videos like this translating them into Spanish. Sometimes the makers of such videos like this will even give their permission to use it as long as they are given credit/cited. 😅

  • @oremazz3754
    @oremazz3754 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Very clear, thanks. But you can go further IF you break the classical view that waves & particles are two roles of one entity, MAYBE they are two entities coexisting together... like a vibrating space where particle exists. Philosophical understandable, no huge diffuse particle that gets compact in an instance (collapse) just space being defined so its compact particle is localizable... I'll appreciate if you can comment about this... you can read more in amazon ebook: Space, main actor of quantum and relativistic theories.... best regards

  • @googleplususer3009
    @googleplususer3009 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Question: Which of the various meanings of "modulus" are you using when you mention the "mod squared of the amplitude"?
    Looking up the meaning of "modulus" gave me several different explanations.....

    • @schmetterling4477
      @schmetterling4477 ปีที่แล้ว

      There is only one definition of modulus (norm, absolute value) for complex numbers. It's the square root of the sum of the squares of the real and imaginary component.

  • @xanamata5386
    @xanamata5386 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    if those waves are everywhere and compose anything , then when we observe a disruption ,then we see their outcome .
    you can not spot a drop in an ocean , but you can see the ripples of one when it produce a disruption .

  • @chx1618
    @chx1618 ปีที่แล้ว

    What do you mean by wavefunctions having no medium, unlike electromagnetic waves? EM fields can exist in free space too. What sort of interpretation for EM did you have in mind?

    • @schmetterling4477
      @schmetterling4477 ปีที่แล้ว

      The electromagnetic field is one of the possible excitations of empty space. Wave functions don't live in physical space, to begin with. They are elements of what mathematicians call a Hilbert space, which is basically an infinite dimensional linear function space.

  • @shashankchandra1068
    @shashankchandra1068 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    In which epoch was quantum field(the first,earliest QF) was created?was it in planck epoch or GUT epoch or Electroweak epoch or quark epoch or other epochs
    OR at instant of bigbang?

    • @yash1152
      @yash1152 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      #save

    • @shashankchandra1068
      @shashankchandra1068 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@yash1152 wt?

    • @yash1152
      @yash1152 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@shashankchandra1068 saving for myself for later as currently i dont know about epoch etc

    • @shashankchandra1068
      @shashankchandra1068 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@yash1152 can u get someone to reply- answer to this ?

    • @yash1152
      @yash1152 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@shashankchandra1068 hmm??

  • @daviddealba9886
    @daviddealba9886 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    So if a quantum wave form is also a particle than would mean a particle would also be equal to a frequency. So would that mean you could manifest a particle with a sound if certain elements were available?

    • @PanLamda
      @PanLamda 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Not sure what you are saying here, but look up "quasiparticles". These are made under specific conditions from classical waves (like sound waves) but exhibit-in a mathematical sense-properties of particles. One example is "Phonons", sound waves behaving like particles
      "Phonon is a quasiparticle with boson properties corresponding to a propagating vibrational quantum of energy, usually in a crystal lattice. Very roughly, the phonon can therefore be considered a quasi-particle of sound propagating in solids"

    • @daviddealba9886
      @daviddealba9886 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@PanLamda
      So the way I see it quantum mechanics is the security system of everything . Well with quantum entanglement and the randomness of the said entangled particle and where it shows up at it’s safe to say that’s the way it’s designed . It’s so if you try to manipulate matter here it may manifest there with a positive outcome .the sheer randomness guarantees it’s a security system . One that only the creator can crack . It to keep the enemy from doing too much.my opinion

  • @Padhaikarbhai
    @Padhaikarbhai 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    wow brother this no body told me in my class 1:43
    u r amazing
    our class just explains how to solve math like a 16 year old

    • @Ebani
      @Ebani 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Really? In my "Waves and fluids" class that was the first thing we saw as every kind of wave has those cyclic properties. The first thing we learned was that sine is basically a "moved" cosine (or viceversa).

    • @Padhaikarbhai
      @Padhaikarbhai 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Ebani um i live in india and i guess u dont know the scene of education in india😞

    • @yash1152
      @yash1152 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Padhaikarbhai ahmmm, these things are covered in NCERT physics too.... Physics.Class XI.Chapter 15.Waves. did u read the chapter from there? i am guessing u skipped NCERT chapter's text and went over through only the exercise part of it.

    • @TheGenerationGapPodcast
      @TheGenerationGapPodcast 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      That is why the derivative of one is equal to the other. Absolute value

  • @RomainPuech
    @RomainPuech 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    You forgot to add the additional video on the top right corner of the screen

    • @yash1152
      @yash1152 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      they are shown to me :thinking:

  • @TheTastyPancake
    @TheTastyPancake 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Great vid as always :)

  • @wulphstein
    @wulphstein 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Also, since the physics community has never explained where the physics constants come from (or what the carriers of the physics constants are), then we all have to wonder if the physics community really understands anything.

  • @jorgepeterbarton
    @jorgepeterbarton 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Is it a K or and R, both at once or a universe where R is K?

  • @DakotaFortnerECAA
    @DakotaFortnerECAA 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    this may be rambling thoughts, but isnt gravitational waves produced by black hole and neutron star collision/ mergers extremely tiny by the time they reach us? The first minute of this video made me wonder if those tiny quantum particles phenomena's are from interacting with the tiny gravity waves produced by the highly energetic mergers like leaves riding ripples in a pond, or something along those lines.

    • @yash1152
      @yash1152 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      i like such rambling thoughts... 'cause thats what we all have :)
      but these rambling thoughts, in my views, are still much better than those tiktoks lol.

  • @ShahryarKhan-KHANSOLO-
    @ShahryarKhan-KHANSOLO- 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The graph shown to illustrate the discontinuity of the gradient/derivative of the wavefunction is not correct. It shows a discontinuity in the value of the wavefunction, not the value of the derivative, and is hence equivalent to the previous graph showing the "break" in the graph, with just the space in between filled in by a line. To show discontinuity in the derivative, you should've shown the slope of the sin curve suddenly change to a non-zero slope and then reconnect to the sin curve later. You did this using a line of infinite slope, which doesn't count, bcs it just illustrate discontinuity in the value of the wavefunction, instead of discontinuity in the derivative.

    • @domainofscience
      @domainofscience  3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Yes of course! Thank you this right.

  • @stoplayin21
    @stoplayin21 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

    For the cat question it depends on who is observing the cat. If a person follows human experience and laws of nature, then they would say yes that cats dead. If someone who is from another plant experience death in a different way allowing the cat continue surviving. The cat would be alive It’s all about what who is observing and the story tells itself.

  • @valterantonioferreira9968
    @valterantonioferreira9968 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Tanks, very nice video.

  • @amal3948
    @amal3948 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    THATS GUD
    😉
    NICE EXPLANATION

  • @haveaniceday9697
    @haveaniceday9697 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    I'll watch it after completing my homework...

    • @yash1152
      @yash1152 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      niice

    • @yash1152
      @yash1152 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      did u watch this? AND completed ur homework too?

  • @bhargavsharma4869
    @bhargavsharma4869 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Make video on map of rocket science too

  • @uzairamin5993
    @uzairamin5993 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Who is watching without knowing the logic of quantum 😀

  • @wardippy226
    @wardippy226 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    The last time i was this early the universe was still 50% anti-matter

  • @kyetexe954
    @kyetexe954 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Dos uploaded a video
    *clicks immediately*

  • @charleshetrick3152
    @charleshetrick3152 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    If the waves make up everything how are they imaginary? The title of this video dose make sense.

    • @maeton-gaming
      @maeton-gaming 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Thats because the entire thing is BOLLOCKS ;) a wave is what soemthing DOES not what something IS

    • @maeton-gaming
      @maeton-gaming 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      The actually mechanics behind our reality are more closely conceived by tesla and Steinmetz, and guess what - they both scoffed at quantum physics as utter gobsmack, just rubbish.

    • @HebaruSan
      @HebaruSan 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      It's a pun, the Schrödinger equation is complex-valued, and complex number contain an imaginary component.

  • @mighty_wolf
    @mighty_wolf 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    I can understand it now

  • @saswotlamichhane5862
    @saswotlamichhane5862 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    *I came here to watch ads, but ended up leaving with a PhD*

  • @sumeetsharma7256
    @sumeetsharma7256 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Please solve wavefunction physics for problems.....real physics comes to the fore through problems

  • @raunakron2061
    @raunakron2061 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Sir please upload year of science 2020🙏🙏

  • @nibussss
    @nibussss ปีที่แล้ว

    We are looking at the physics of extremely tiny things….so as I said on TH-cam or fb, if some such particle moves it may interact with a medium that waves….so there may be a medium after all….oh I have to see what nothing is..or we know nothing bout it!!!lol😅

    • @schmetterling4477
      @schmetterling4477 ปีที่แล้ว

      I can buy superconductors of basically any size. The idea that quantum mechanics is about "small things" is completely wrong.

  • @nikolayrayanov2895
    @nikolayrayanov2895 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Pilot wave theory :)

    • @yash1152
      @yash1152 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      lolol

  • @mrmathman202
    @mrmathman202 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    I mean EM waves don't have a medium either unless the EM field is the medium then id argue probability itself is the medium of quantum waves

  • @Linkwii64
    @Linkwii64 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    I always think quantum mechanics as On and Off switch that only appear if something happen to disturb it waves. If I watch this video and it start playing I open the box and look at the cat. Its alive... but if the video finished playing and go away the video end the cat died.

    • @TheGenerationGapPodcast
      @TheGenerationGapPodcast 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Did decoherence kill the cat? Or noise from these model singers?

  • @a.vignesh4562
    @a.vignesh4562 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    🔥

  • @mohneeshsharma
    @mohneeshsharma 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Sir, I want a video on "how to study math and physics on your own: tips for young scientists"

  • @rajpoottech2090
    @rajpoottech2090 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    If you have any problem related to technology then how can we solve in our channel😊

  • @bopeacock1943
    @bopeacock1943 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I'm going to give up trying to understand I just can't wrap my head around the physical world in math equations

    • @GoofyIracingChannel
      @GoofyIracingChannel 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      dont give up, we weren’t meant to understand probabilities. quantum mechanics are about having an open mind about ambiguities in physics

  • @hejmeddig3103
    @hejmeddig3103 12 วันที่ผ่านมา

    Dating in the quantum world would be wild-you’re both single and in a relationship until someone checks your Facebook status.

  • @pan_bacchanal
    @pan_bacchanal 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    ❤️❤️❤️

  • @yash1152
    @yash1152 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    *Questions:*
    0:39 the following wording/speech is correct *"no medium or field"* - the visual only mentions medium - feels a bit odd.
    4:15 "continuous gradient" means differentiable right??
    ----
    *Timestamps:*
    0:26 Equation of different waves (mechanical waves, EMW, Quantum matter waves)
    1:02 Redirect worth watching (interpretations of QM)
    1:16 Wavefunction's equation
    2:50 Different operations on ψ for P (different properties: like x, p, E, & spin)
    like 2:38 for P(p)
    3:21 Wavefunction Constraints
    5:12 Funding sources

  • @realcygnus
    @realcygnus 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Nifty

  • @Saka_Mulia
    @Saka_Mulia 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    I want to adopt a cat just so I can name it Deco Herence.

  • @KenanSeyidov
    @KenanSeyidov 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    I just wanna say that if I didn’t have knowledge in ode and probability I wouldn’t understand what you mean, so largely inaccessible to layman and if that’s your audience... you know where this is going

    • @yash1152
      @yash1152 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      ahm, so what?? the layman trying to understand - gotta level up to understand certain things. all things cant be made accessible to layman while keeping the rigour intact.

    • @KenanSeyidov
      @KenanSeyidov 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@yash1152 this is an entertainment channel not a lecture, what rigour are you talking about? You want a layman to take 4 courses to get to ode and watch this video, what leveling up are you talking about? You are a classic elitist engineering ahole. Show empathy or foff.

  • @deezynar
    @deezynar 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    All matter is made of something imaginary.
    Does that mean everything is imaginary?

    • @macaroon_nuggets8008
      @macaroon_nuggets8008 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      No, that tool is imaginary.

    • @TheGenerationGapPodcast
      @TheGenerationGapPodcast 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Imaginary part expresses the rotation, while the stuff inside the speeds up the spiralling motion

  • @kronoscamron7412
    @kronoscamron7412 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

    teacher said : you dont need to understand it, just do the math 😆

    • @schmetterling4477
      @schmetterling4477 หลายเดือนก่อน

      It's much easier to do the math when you understand what it's about. This video won't do much for you, though. :-)

    • @kronoscamron7412
      @kronoscamron7412 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@schmetterling4477 neither did my teacher .😟

    • @schmetterling4477
      @schmetterling4477 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@kronoscamron7412 I get that. The professor who taught my QM 101 class didn't care to inform himself, either. He got the math right but everything else was total nonsense.

  • @tomcat1112k
    @tomcat1112k 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    the K looks like a R

  • @wulphstein
    @wulphstein 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    It is absurd to assume that wave functions don't exist. If the Casimir effect proves that virtual photons exist, then why wouldn't wave functions exist? I just don't understand why physicists are too flat earthly to make that connection.

    • @TheGenerationGapPodcast
      @TheGenerationGapPodcast 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Generation Gap
      1 second ago
      What exactly does "exist" mean in this context? If a implies b , that does not mean apple implies car.

  • @jjay6764
    @jjay6764 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    There's a simple answer to this. The wavefunction is REAL but NONPHYSICAL. The reason you have so many interpretations in QM is because people are trying to explain nonphysical behavior in a materialistic way. Entanglement, tunneling, teleportation, superposition of a particle and more occur because subatomic particles are governed by a REAL but NONPHYSICAL wavefunction. Quantum Cryptography supports this. Here's a paper called,"The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography" arxiv.org/abs/1311.7127 this was confirmed in experiment and information was sent between two points without the need of a physical particle. Tesla said,“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”

    • @yash1152
      @yash1152 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      #save nice

  • @RickClark58
    @RickClark58 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Before I tapped the like button it read 666. You can thank me later. Haha.

  • @DDRational_
    @DDRational_ 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    First!

  • @Tobi-oi3uf
    @Tobi-oi3uf 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Is that Shure SM 57 lmao

  • @kld5617
    @kld5617 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Isn't this the company that gates has sold all his stocks for

    • @yash1152
      @yash1152 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      which?

    • @kld5617
      @kld5617 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@yash1152 schodinger

  • @ClockworksOfGL
    @ClockworksOfGL 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    If you understand quantum mechanics, then you don’t understand quantum mechanics.

  • @amal3948
    @amal3948 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    .

    • @amal3948
      @amal3948 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      ...0\

  • @zelmoziggy
    @zelmoziggy 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Too complex for an introduction.

  • @cycklist
    @cycklist 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Why are you spelling visualise like an American? And normalisable?

  • @lien3729
    @lien3729 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    q-bs NO aether YES

  • @Sharperthanu1
    @Sharperthanu1 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

    This is crap.The Quantum wave function IS real because it leaves markings on the photographic plate at the back of the double slit experiment when no one is watching the experiment.This is much like when someone knows that a rabbit or squirrel has been in their backyard during the winter by the tracks they leave in the snow

    • @lepidoptera9337
      @lepidoptera9337 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

      The distribution of photons on a film placed after a double slit is already predicted by Maxwell. You don't need wave functions for that. Even technically wave functions would be the wrong tool because scattering on a double slit is not even unitary.

    • @Sharperthanu1
      @Sharperthanu1 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@lepidoptera9337 This is something I've never heard of before.Are you trying to say that there is no such thing as a wave function? If you can prove this there are a lot of scientists you should tell this to

    • @lepidoptera9337
      @lepidoptera9337 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@Sharperthanu1 You never talked to a physicist who understood quantum mechanics before. No deep mystery there. ;-)
      Of course there is no such thing as a wave function. Wave functions are mathematical abstracts that derive from the same assumptions as probability distributions. They are solutions to Kolmogorov's axioms for independent experiments. Where did you think the unitarity came from? Zeus or Yahweh? Dude...
      If you ever watch a physicist/amateur who can't tell you that in the first minute of the explanation, it's time to switch the channel. That person doesn't know what quantum mechanics is. They are guessing just as badly as you are. ;-)

  • @gokudragneal7488
    @gokudragneal7488 ปีที่แล้ว

    3 years in college with nothing to show for , god no .....

  • @James-ll3jb
    @James-ll3jb ปีที่แล้ว

    Thanks for the pointless pseudoexplanation😂