That wrench quite honestly is the most terrifying thing I’ve ever seen. Awesome video though James!
@AkiraHartono
3 жыл бұрын
His name is James??
@cke900
3 жыл бұрын
Fr
@diseasebeats9493
3 жыл бұрын
@@AkiraHartono ...charles 😓
@MrWizardChannel
3 жыл бұрын
Heloooo
@TheActionLab
3 жыл бұрын
perfect answer for "you wanna know how I got these scars..."
@NamasteSpoon
3 жыл бұрын
This man is literally making me listen to a physics class and i'm enjoying every second of it.
@jaythecreed7772
3 жыл бұрын
Yess
@westonding8953
3 жыл бұрын
His videos became a staple of the Physics classes I taught.
@NueUzrnem
3 жыл бұрын
THIS IS HOW THE FUCKING SCHOOLS SHOULD WORK. Instead all we get is depressed teachers who are doing this job for money.
@westonding8953
3 жыл бұрын
@@NueUzrnem some experiments are quite difficult to replicate. Also, be aware, you do need to be able to calculate the numbers for any science class so math skills have to be considered.
@nahCmeR
3 жыл бұрын
It's funny, for me at least I hated this in school. Hated learning in general. Now that I've out I absolutely love learning again, about everything. Wish I had this drive to learn back in school haha.
@shade5554
3 жыл бұрын
Me thinking: "Pfft, it's just diffraction of light" This man: "Jokes on you mf, I know what you're thinking"
@NGC-nx7nl
3 жыл бұрын
Surely this is just diffraction though right? Since we see an interference pattern on the wall we know the light acts as waves, and doesn't it act as a particle only once it hits the wall? This would allow diffraction to occur while still making the wall glow.
@c47force15
3 жыл бұрын
The joke is on everyone who believes in particles.
@aidancooper9498
3 жыл бұрын
@@NGC-nx7nl yeah I'm also confused how this isn't just demonstrating the waveform of light
@westonding8953
3 жыл бұрын
He’s a good mentalist. Lol
@carolinalee2989
3 жыл бұрын
@@NGC-nx7nl I didn't understand why a wave will be able to charge the wall but not a particle. Wouldn't the particle have more energy?
@erstwhilegrubstake
3 жыл бұрын
"I have two razor blades connected to a crescent wrench" Me: Backing away slowly and avoiding eye contact.
@Cryptic_Chai
3 жыл бұрын
What amazes me more is he can keep the frequency of posting new content and none of which is boring. Whereas big content creators run out of content, he never inspite of his main topic being science. Truly amazing. Keep up the great work 💯
@R2Bl3nd
3 жыл бұрын
I think a big reason for this is that the world is a truly fascinating place, and when you drill deep into anything you'll uncover some amazing insights. So, someone that's curious, smart, educated, and good at explaining things will have an endless supply of content from nature.
@westonding8953
3 жыл бұрын
Ever wonder if there is a Goeddel’s incompleteness theorem of science?
@DukeEllision329
3 жыл бұрын
@Marko God didn't create the device through which you decided to communicate your opinion.
@jjjcccbbb111222333
3 жыл бұрын
@Marko nice troll
@bevbee9372
2 жыл бұрын
"Big content creators run out of content"
@aayushgautam580
3 жыл бұрын
the way he said jokes on you... I didn't even question his ways, but still felt roasted. Gad Damn Ma Man's Cool.
@Petrichor1314
3 жыл бұрын
ikr 😂😂
@Lucidthinking
3 жыл бұрын
Hey James, thank you very much for doing this experiment. Did you try coloring the razor with super black color, to rule out reflection from the edges of the blades? I did the experiment myself and found that slight movements in the angle of the blade shows that even the thin edge of the blade reflects light and changes the diffraction pattern. Another question that comes to my mind is why the spread of light is not uniform but scattered by bright and dark zones. The Heisenberg principle equation does not contain anything that explain the scattering, while it can be explained easily by interference.
@morkovija
3 жыл бұрын
All valid points here, i am curious now and call for updated experiment!
@TheActionLab
3 жыл бұрын
the reflected light is diffuse light (not like a mirror). The light is reflected in all directions and is no longer "laser" light after reflection. It cannot reflect in a beam to strongly reach the wall. I didn't paint them because the small imperfections from the paint on the edge of the blade change the pattern enough to not be as clear. With a good paint job it will work just the same though. For example just take a piece of black paper and make a small slit and shine the light through and you will get the same spread pattern. This is not from reflection, it is from diffraction/uncertainty principle.
@TheActionLab
3 жыл бұрын
And also the uncertainty principle does not explain the interference pattern fully, it is a general rule that tells you the theoretical limit. This experiment shows the result of trying to tighten the variability of conjugate variables. To get the full description you have to use the schrodinger wave equation
@morkovija
3 жыл бұрын
@@TheActionLab great clarification. Thank you!
@Lucidthinking
3 жыл бұрын
Hey James, Thanks for your answer. I found out that there is a rather strong reflection even if the surface diffuses light. Even when the slit and laser were 2 meters from the wall. You can see it if the room is dark. You can take a credit card and move it closer to the laser (like a single blade). Most of the time I observe a light beam perpendicular to the slit in the opposite direction. This seems like a reflection. If I color the side of the credit card black, there is less reflection. The interesting thing is that I also see a shorter beam going in the other direction, and that one is probably not a reflection, but perhaps because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. You wrote: "I didn't paint them because the small imperfections from the paint on the edge of the blade change the pattern enough to not be as clear" It's strange because using normal black paint I didn't observe much difference in the pattern. Also, isn't the less clear pattern is exactly what we want to find? Maybe the diffraction pattern is not because of the Heisenberg principle, and with a super black color, we could see the pure Heisenberg principle without the diffraction pattern. @@TheActionLab
@IJNAoba9-25-26
3 жыл бұрын
This was when Walter Light, Became Heisenberg's Principle.
@aftermath7
3 жыл бұрын
"Yo bitch! Where is my uncertainty?" ~Jesse Planck
@ultraminecraft69
3 жыл бұрын
"Ah, Mr. White. You make a good easy bake cupcake. How about you work for me."
@aftermath7
3 жыл бұрын
@@ultraminecraft69 we need to cook!
@rerewewrwrwrw
3 жыл бұрын
You win lmao
@kelvinpino4065
3 жыл бұрын
You're Goddamm right
@Torochel
3 жыл бұрын
I guess that's the very principle of diffraction in photography. Such an interesting video, thanks !
@Prox-wb9tk
3 жыл бұрын
Exactly its diffraction
@enderyu
3 жыл бұрын
@@Prox-wb9tk Isn't that the point? Heisenberg's uncertainty is an intrinsic property of waves, and since quantum objects are wave-particles, they all obey the uncertainty principle. So you could argue that the spread from diffraction is due to Heisenberg.
@AlversonLayne
3 жыл бұрын
Bringing physics education to the general public - The Action Lab is doing the Lord’s work.
@martin09091989
3 жыл бұрын
"The Lord´s Work" sounds a little religious.... 😕 But in principle you are right!
@jaythecreed7772
3 жыл бұрын
Yes
@jaythecreed7772
3 жыл бұрын
@@martin09091989 S. Ramanujan said '' An equation means nothing to me unless it express a thought of God '' S. Ramanujan was an great Indian mathematician.
@n0nenone
3 жыл бұрын
@@jaythecreed7772 feels like every indian is mathematetian lol.. (no offense)
@jaythecreed7772
3 жыл бұрын
@@n0nenone why you feel that?
@ChordRunner
3 жыл бұрын
This always was difficult to understand for me: even a complicated problem can have its representation in a simplified example. The hardest part was to conduct the simplification properly.
@turanmusevitoglu
3 жыл бұрын
I wanted to do this experiment with similar setup in my highschool, but my physic teacher didn’t let me, saying it would be impossible to do this experiment with homemade equipment. I cannot thank you enough that you made my once dream true.
@maniacmemes5746
3 жыл бұрын
"jokes on you" I never thought that he would say that
@fernandosanchez9243
3 жыл бұрын
While watching this I was thinking "but that's not because of Heisenberg's principle, it's because of diffraction", but then he said "I know what you are thinking, this is due to diffraction", I I went :o . But then bam!! He also said after that "but the joke is on you because this is a glow in the dark screen"... and then I went :ooo. Amazing video!! (Also, that's a very clever way to make a variable single slit light).
@oraora8214
3 жыл бұрын
5:00 - False. This does not prove particles, because not every wave can affect every resonator. You need a specific wave length to do that, and in your charging example you used a light of different wave-length.
@matthewnardin7304
3 жыл бұрын
Right? I didn't think a red laser could charge glow in the dark stuff anyway.
@oraora8214
3 жыл бұрын
@@matthewnardin7304 On the visible spectrum red light is the light with largest wavelength. My guess is that it simply too big to have a strong effect on atoms on that board. We don't really know the exact 3D structure of the atom, but what we do know is that atoms consists of things that move. I.e. atom is not a static object. And as such there should be a way to strongly affect that internal motion with frequencies in certain ranges.
@johnschewe6358
3 жыл бұрын
Exactly. Saying that light must be a particle because whether or not it can charge a glow-in-the-dark surface depends on its momentum is like saying that sound must be a particle because whether or not it can move a diaphragm depends on its momentum. Light may simply have particle-like characteristics because of the medium it travels in, just like sound. The only difference is that light is much smaller and we struggle to make mechanisms that can measure it without modifying it. That's where the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle comes in. But that applies to a single quanta of light, not to a beam of light.
@abhijiths5237
3 жыл бұрын
I think it does prove as, if they were waves and if you have a high intensity beam like a laser it would easily knock off electrons as waves can clump together.
@johnschewe6358
3 жыл бұрын
@@abhijiths5237 What do you mean waves can clump together? Air can pressurize. Are you somehow projecting a property of air onto electrons? Because so far our experience with electrons shows that electrons cannot occupy the same space. Or maybe the misconception is the difference between amplitude and frequency (wavelength). Both of which are a component of energy, but have very different properties including permeability. For example, look at how bright the red light is compared to the blue light in this video ( 5:22 ). It could just be a limitation of the camera, but I'd like to think that more blue light is being absorbed by the surface than red light. And we see that as a greater intensity (amplitude) of red (frequency) light being reflected.
@chrisfuller1268
2 жыл бұрын
Amazingly good experimentalist. It's clear you're spending countless hours coming up with extremely creative ways to demonstrate concepts. Good work!
@Crayphor
3 жыл бұрын
I've also run into a similar uncertainty when doing signal processing. The more you know about the frequency of a signal the less you know about the time at which that frequency was occurring. (Frequency resolution vs. temporal resolution)
@pimvandenberg494
3 жыл бұрын
The uncertainty principle follows from the "wave nature" of particles in QM. In fact, it holds for waves of any kind, so what you're talking about is identical. I believe this way of visualizing it is very intuitive and I wish it would get taught like that in uni courses.
@JdeBP
3 жыл бұрын
And of course E = hf . (-:
@smolboi9659
3 жыл бұрын
Yea the frequency time uncertainty is the same as the energy time uncertainty except for a planck's constant. The spatial version is the position spatial frequency uncertainty. This is equivalent to the position momentum uncertainty except for a plancks constant.
@RandomAccountHolder
3 жыл бұрын
However, it's hard to energize a glow in the dark substance with a light that is a lower frequency than what the glow paint re-emits. Using a UV or blue laser would take that aspect out of the experiment. I still think that spread is from diffraction. The LIT fact sheet actually addresses this: "A light of greater frequency than the wavelength colour of light that the glow in the dark material emits. LIT has a green light emission glow, therefore to charge it would need a light with a higher frequency green light...." Etc.
@ItsTheMojo
3 жыл бұрын
Apparently Feynman used diffraction as a demonstration of the uncertainty principle in action. I don't think it's correct to say that the spread is not diffraction. The diffraction pattern is related to the wavelength, definitely a wave characteristic. And that's true whether what's passing through the slit is a wave on water, light, or electrons. But that doesn't mean it's not a demonstration of the uncertainty principle.
@delta-KaeBee
3 жыл бұрын
Absolutely 💯° I was thinking the same thing and wanted to see if anyone else caught that. AS WELL, I believe he is incorrect in his stating that Light is both a wave and particle. To me this is nonsense, that many genius inventors, scientists, n great thinkers in history agree with me. Light, along with everything else in the perceived world, is comprised of waveforms, or in other words, composed of varying pressure conditions. "Light", specifically though, "is nothing other than a sound wave in the ether" (- Nikola Tesla) . It is a coaxial propagation of induction through a medium. There is nothing TRULY traveling, no Thing or item of principality, that is moving from point A to point B. It is merely the movement (or moved-moment), or perturbation or disturbance of the medium, that causes the perception of a moving instance of Light, or "beam" or "particle" of Light. I would suggest to anyone interested in the Nature of Light, Electromagnetism, field theory, dielectricity, and DEFINITELY if you're interested in quantum mechanics, to check out the material (papers, books, videos, lectures, etc) of Nikola Tesla, Oliver Heaviside, Eric Dollard, Charles Proteus Steinmetz, Walter Russell, and Dr Edward Dowdye just to name a few among the many genius inventors, thinkers, scientists, and luminaries of our recent history,, from the late 1800's up to our current decade, with Dr Dowdye leaving this Earth and making his passage back Home on December 31st of 2020.
@ItsTheMojo
3 жыл бұрын
@@delta-KaeBee I'm not sure who you think you're agreeing with. I certainly didn't say that light does not have the same apparently dual nature as anything else. Perhaps the world of physics has changed drastically in the last 20 years, but right up to the end of the 1990's it was not commonly held that everything is composed of waves, but rather that what makes up the universe around us has characteristics of both waves and particles and that which behaviour is observed depends on the point of view. That doesn't even necessarily imply that things are sometimes waves and sometimes particles. Only that, whatever they are, they exhibit characteristics of both. Some geniuses may well have believed that everything is waves. After all, there was a time when people, including geniuses, believed in the notion of the ether. Geniuses, luminaries, thinkers have all made mistakes in all fields over the centuries. Heaviside, for instance, was also a critic of Einstein's theories of relativity, two of the most heavily tested physics theories of all time. Of course, that doesn't mean they're "right" in the sense of being the final word. They may turn out, like Newton's laws before them, to be approximations. Or they may turn simply to give the correct results accidentally. There are other theories that challenge the supremacy of relativity and physicists are always probing, looking for predictions of the theory to turn out to be incorrect.
@CedricBaleine
3 жыл бұрын
I was not convicted either. This is diffraction for me too and the fact that the laser didn't light the background is due to the lower energy it conveyed compare to a blue light
@AnalyticalReckoner
3 жыл бұрын
@@delta-KaeBee That's quite a strong appeal to authority you got going on there. How very scientific of you.
@ameenahsf
3 жыл бұрын
Lol when he said "I know what your thinking" and proceeds to say the most sciency thing to ever science and I'm like No... I was wondering why my palm is sp itchy and if that really means I'm gonna get some money but go off sir 😂
@tvishmaychoudhary69
3 жыл бұрын
Iam pretty sure you are an Indian
@SwampDonkey225
3 жыл бұрын
Sometimes I have no idea what you are talking about, but it's still interesting. love your vids!
@vidoexperience8112
3 жыл бұрын
Science class in school- Zzzzzzzz. Action lab science class- Whooooo!! I definitely would have enjoyed high school science if he were my science teacher!
@westonding8953
3 жыл бұрын
His videos were a staple of the Physics classes I taught.
@westonding8953
3 жыл бұрын
@King Pistachion What do you mean? I taught Physics for a semester.
@AS-ds4in
3 жыл бұрын
i just tried it out except i used scissors and normal white paper and it works!!!science is amazing
@Not_Sure_2505
3 жыл бұрын
Red light wont charge glow in the dark items. There isnt enough energy at that wavelength, shorter wavelengths are needed. Actually, at a high enough power, a red laser will make charged glow in the dark items dimmer.
@-a13x-75
2 жыл бұрын
Yep that’s due to Stokes shift. Can’t get more energy out of the system than you put in it. A lower energy red photon can’t cause the emission of a higher energy green photon. When he shines the higher energy violet photon the emission is a lower energy green photon which makes sense.
@dickyr3295
3 жыл бұрын
Heisenberg was a genius for producing this theory. And you are a genius for demonstrating and explaining all these complex topics so dullards like me can understand. Thank you.
@zoomin2298
3 жыл бұрын
Hey James I have an idea for your future video that take a copper cube and dip it in pure liquid oxygen due to oxidation in pure oxygen the reaction will relatively more faster than air I am sure the results will be amazing.
@KarvyKlaugs
3 жыл бұрын
Love how 15-20 years ago being smart was the weird nerd thing, now being smart and being called a nerd is a compliment
@jwonz2054
3 жыл бұрын
This isn't some weird thing with the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, but it's actually just the diffraction of light since light is a wave and when sent through something small it just diffracts and spreads out. But the joke isn't on me! Your explanation of the red light being a particle is insufficient.
@starventure
3 жыл бұрын
Does that apply to the double slit experiment as well?
@WouterVerbruggen
3 жыл бұрын
True, this is Fraunhofer diffraction
@leosousa7404
29 күн бұрын
A wave wouldn't go straight like a laser. It is sad to see lasers, which rely on the discreteness of QM, being the only tool used to demonstrate supposedly classical diffraction of light. Makes zero sense.
@patas294
2 жыл бұрын
0:38 @The Action Lab.. Heisenberg looks like if James took a photo of him back in time in the 50s... The resemblance is uncanny...👌👌❤️❤️from India..you are awesome sir..just quenching my scientific thirst....👍👍🙏🙏
@priyanshujain5597
3 жыл бұрын
5:54 Its >= rather than just =
@fortyfour6626
3 жыл бұрын
I thought I was watching a new chapter of Saw! Kidding, love action lab and how real world it is. My generation lived MR Wizard…..today we have this!!! Never over complex but not dumbed down. Kudos as always!
@shri9095
3 жыл бұрын
I want him to be my science teacher Or a another teacher with a killer smile and skills like him 😁😁😁
@rrpearsall
3 жыл бұрын
@@yuukina7888 do you believe we are all one consciousness experiencing ourselves subjectively?
@Ryukai-san
3 жыл бұрын
The clip on mic + the creases in your shirt make it look like you have a GIANT spider on you! 🕷 :D
@kingsavage2272
3 жыл бұрын
There's definitely a limit to how simple this concept can be explained. He for sure wrestled with that this episode
@Geenimetsuri
3 жыл бұрын
These videos are gold! I hadn't thought of the wave-particle duality as a fundamental consequence of uncertainty principle, but it is! E = hf, t = x/c...and on the other side h/4 pi, and the h just cancels out across, add a bit of physics, and you'll get optics. Brilliant!
@simonblackham4987
2 жыл бұрын
I think it is the other way around ... the uncertainty principle is a consequence of the wave particle duality. Look at how fourier transforms can effectively build a 'particle' out of waves and the uncertainty that arises therefrom. I will search for a reference...
@toasty945
3 жыл бұрын
He'd be a epic science teacher
@ithink...7506
3 жыл бұрын
@Nоt RicкRоll👇 really smart, but terrible execution
@VdonnyV
3 жыл бұрын
Oh....My....Gosh........ I've seen this experiment multiple times in so many different video animations, but still this is the BEST representation EVER!! This MUST be used as a reference world wide as the new standard for understanding how quantum mechanics is studied!! Wow...
@musicburst2513
3 жыл бұрын
Hank: I thought you were a chemist Heisenberg: I thought you were a geologist
@neino36
3 жыл бұрын
You have all the charisma of an ornamented doorknob. But you talk about crazy interesting topics, so I love your stuff!
@AonGuardian
3 жыл бұрын
Can "squishing" light be akin to increasing the spread of a water stream from a hose when you attempt to occlude or squish the opening?
@Rick_McDick
3 жыл бұрын
Honestly that's making me think pretty hard. There ARE experiments that use water to simulate quantum effects...
@manasverma9176
3 жыл бұрын
I am from India and I am a JEE aspirant, these type of videos really helps me to relate my theory to its practical application. Thanks to you. Keep uploading these type of videos.
@karansandhu4827
3 жыл бұрын
Good luck
@manasverma9176
3 жыл бұрын
@@karansandhu4827 thanks😊
@HelPfeffer
3 жыл бұрын
I like this, but the formula is wrong. It a >= If it were a = We could know one bc of the other
@amrubaian
3 жыл бұрын
The way I understand it, it is both diffraction and a consequence of the uncertainty principle. Meaning that if you describe the system in classical diffraction theory and quantum mechanics, both would yield the same results. What you are probably missing is that diffraction theory DOES have the concept of "canonically conjugate variables" embedded in it disguised within the Fourier transform formulation of diffraction theory. Also shouldn't the transfer of energy between light and your glow wall be related to wavelength as oppose to the wave/particle description of light?
@EchoLostAvakin
3 жыл бұрын
Does the reflective nature of the gap not interfere with the output out light? Those blades are pretty mirrored, would you get the same result if you sprayed the blades matt back... 🤔
@dragoscoco2173
3 жыл бұрын
Yes you would. This experiment can be done with ultra-black blades, Mosquito nets, a small piece of hair at home. Professional diffraction gratings are just tiny parallel scratches (going to but not limited to 100,000 per inch) on transparent plastic. Or the really good ones etched or some other highly priced technology. It does not matter what the material is as long as it imposes a passing and non passing (absorption/reflection/diffusion) region for the photons.
@EchoLostAvakin
3 жыл бұрын
@@dragoscoco2173 thanks for the reply 👍
@worldisannoying
Жыл бұрын
finally someone actually showed the experiment. thats so cool
@HelPfeffer
3 жыл бұрын
"The joke is on you" XD ❤️❤️
@tomsterbg8130
3 жыл бұрын
I'm starting the year and honestly we learned about waves for the first time less than a week ago. The timing couldn't have been more perfect!
@sudhirchawan967
3 жыл бұрын
I love your videos they are so helpful
@Dhanuhammer
3 жыл бұрын
Ah. A wonderful concept of Young's Double Slit Experiment. With terrifying sums and calculations. What a thrill! 😂
@felipeowczarzak4927
3 жыл бұрын
Ok, now I understand... Its not a V neck shirt, its his mic.
@n0nenone
3 жыл бұрын
Goddamnit
@yodaqwq
3 жыл бұрын
Amazing experiment. Next you should try to do it with two more razor blades perpendicular to the two first, so that you are confining it along two axes instead of one.
@westonding8953
3 жыл бұрын
Good idea!
@blueredbrick
3 жыл бұрын
You can charge that background with a flashlight to emit a smooth green light and then use the red laser to stimulate emission, leaving dark trails.
@1gorSouz4
3 жыл бұрын
I don't understand what exactly you're saying, but it sounds cool
@emilyrusso5307
3 жыл бұрын
Bless you, I need to know this for chem recitations tomorrow you just saved my ass
@charlesbrightman4237
3 жыл бұрын
What you and others fail to realize is that the atoms and molecules, in this case of the razor blades, have an associated magnetic field with them. Light, 'em', also has a magnetic component to it. Magnetism is magnetism, varying possibly only in density and energy frequency. The magnetic portion of the 'em' interacts with the magnetic portion of the atoms and molecules of the razors, thereby causing the indications observed.
@abcdefgh-db1to
3 жыл бұрын
You don't make any sense. This is the wave-particle duality of light that is displayed here. The material the razor blade is made of doesn't matter at all, it doesn't interact " magnetically" with the light
@charlesbrightman4237
3 жыл бұрын
@@abcdefgh-db1to Here is an idea I had quite a while ago for what I believe is a better explanation to the dual slit experiment: (copy and paste from my files): It is only an idea on my part but it goes something like this: 1. Charged particles have their associated magnetic fields with them. 2. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 3. Photons also have both an electrical and magnetic components to them. 4. Whenever a proton, electron, or photon is shot out of a gun, it's respective magnetic field interacts with the magnetic fields of the electrons in the atoms and molecules of the gun itself, the medium the projectile is traveling through (ie: air), and/or from around the slits themselves. 5. Via QED (quantum electrodynamics), newly generated photons might occur. 6. The projectile goes on it's own way and the newly generated photons go on their own way. It gives the illusion of a wave particle duality, but it is not that way in actual reality. 7. Specifically in the case of protons or electrons, the newly generated EM wave travels faster than the particles. The new EM waves go through both slits and sets up "hills and valleys" of field energy. When the proton or electron goes through one of the slits, it then follows whatever "valley" it enters thereby over time, even shooting only one proton or one electron at a time, the interference pattern will still emerge. 8. As far as detectors are concerned, they probably have an energy field that is one way when on and a different way when off. The interaction of this energy field (or the lack thereof) with whatever is passing through it, gives the indication that is observed. Now, for those who hold fast to reality being probability waves that are condensed down by an observer into one single physical reality, then: a. What exactly are these probability waves made up of? b. Where exactly are these probability waves stored at until they are observed? c. How exactly does an observer in physical reality actually observe these probability waves and condense them down into one single physical reality? d. Who and/or what observed the first observer? e. What exactly happens when two or more observers observe different probability waves? Which one takes precedent in physical reality? For me, while this observer condensing probability waves down into one single physical reality might work well on paper, it does not appear to reflect actual reality. Now, utilizing the scientific principal of Occam's razor, which way is more probably correct? My way by utilizing known scientific principals, or that is as discerned on paper as stated above is how reality actually is?
@karansandhu4827
3 жыл бұрын
You know this diffraction pattern is being studied from 100’s of years right? And you know brilliant minds have explained the phenomenon and 1000’s of experiments conducted by millions of scientists confirm them right. You think you are smartest of them all?
@abcdefgh-db1to
3 жыл бұрын
@@charlesbrightman4237 your understanding of the interaction between charged particles and magnetic fields is very wrong. As for your denying of quantum mechanics and probability happening in the physical world, how then can you imagine quantum computing, which actually works in the physical world. As for when two observers observe different probability waves, it doesn't even make sense. As soon as you make a measurement, you interfere with the probability wave and you basically fixate the state the particle is in, if a second observer arrives, he will observe exactly the same thing as the first. And believe me, when you do the math, the physical world is in perfect accordance with quantum mechanics. There are still lots of areas of unknown but everything you have mentioned is overall well understood and is pretty basic quantum mechanics knowledge.
@charlesbrightman4237
3 жыл бұрын
@@abcdefgh-db1to Nope, you are wrong and do not understand QED and QCD.
@lontongtepungroti2777
3 жыл бұрын
I've heard this experiment hundreds of times here on youtube and in class but seeing it and explained this clearly still blows my mind, thanks !
@realedna
3 жыл бұрын
How much do you charge for 1000 positive comments?
@lontongtepungroti2777
3 жыл бұрын
@@realedna much more than doing ur mom
@AXMIM
3 жыл бұрын
How can you be sure, the pattern wasn't created from the light being reflection at the edges of the blade? Perhaps, reflection could also explain why the light is getting more and more pale as it get away from the center. I would be curious to see the same experiment but with a non reflecting surface on the edge like some black tape for example..
@Lucidthinking
3 жыл бұрын
Light is reflected from the edges of the blade (as I noticed when doing this experiment myself). To rule out the influence of the reflection I suggest coloring the blades with super black color. (I only had normal black colors, and they still reflect the laser)
@Mernom
3 жыл бұрын
How would it be reflected? The angle was all wrong for it.
@abcdefgh-db1to
3 жыл бұрын
No it's not reflection. You can do it with anything, a slot in paper will do. It's just the result of the wave-duality of light. You can actually calculate the shape of the pattern of light in accordance with the wave length of light and the size and shape of the slot
@Lucidthinking
3 жыл бұрын
Laser reflection is very strong. Even a 0.25 mm paper reflects a lot of light. Try pointing a laser on the side of a paper and you will see it reflects very brightly. So I would not rule out this option without an experiment. @@abcdefgh-db1to
@Lucidthinking
3 жыл бұрын
Laser is not really a parallel beam. It spreads with a certain angle. For example, the farther away you are from the wall, the laser spot gets bigger. Since the beam is not really parallel, light can hit the edges with an angle and reflect. @@Mernom
@ankitray9341
3 жыл бұрын
Few days ago I saw a video of Veritasium where he explained exactly this concept with sophisticated equipments but you just used the household equipments. You are awesome!!!!!! Fun fact: Their sponsor was also Kiwico on that video.
@yungifez
3 жыл бұрын
I thought the principle had a >= and not an =
@jmcsquared18
10 ай бұрын
A great demonstration, but what it really demonstrates is that light is a wave; that pattern on the wall is just single-slit diffraction. What really bakes the noodle is when you learn later on that light is also a particle. That's when the quantum weirdness kicks in.
@Idk-ks4ch
3 жыл бұрын
Hey, If the mass of light is 0 , then it's momentum will be Momentum= Mass* Velocity Momentum= 0 * Velocity Therefore momentum of light is zero.
@darkstar9942
3 жыл бұрын
Special relativity
@ERRORGENOUS
3 жыл бұрын
Photons rest mass is zero but as speed increases mass also increases but in momentum of light we use another formula not mass ×velocity
@sharan-kumar
3 жыл бұрын
Don't use *p=mv* formula. It won't work to calculate particles momentum.
@elonmusk7768
3 жыл бұрын
This formula is for macro object but not valid for atomic level... For atomic particle Momentum =root*(l(l+2))h/2pie. Where l is azimuthal quantum no
@TheMegahertzChannel
3 жыл бұрын
Although light has no mass it does in fact still carry momentum. This is why we have solar sails that can be pushed by photons as some of the lights momentum is transferred to the sail. The momentum of light is given by p=h*wavelength. As for why light carries momentum, this is a consequence of lorentz transformations that show that as long as a massless object travels at the speed of light, they also carries momentum.
How do we know for sure that some of the laser light wasn't reflecting off the imperfect edges of the razor blades and thus spreading out to either side. It looks like an interference pattern as well, which could be light from each left/right blade edge reflection?
@AXMIM
3 жыл бұрын
I also though the pattern may be caused by reflection of the edges of the blade. It would explain why the light were more and more dim on the side. It should have put a non reflecting surface on the edge like some black tape.
@shivodit3823
3 жыл бұрын
Check out diffraction due to a single slit, it's the phenomenon that's occuring as the blades get super close together.
@drsczaro6015
3 жыл бұрын
Damn, u made me finally understand why we cant measure momentum and position of the particle in the same time. I was so confused by every explanation but you explained it best by just showing that energy and time is the same example... Thanks!
@heisenberg2514
3 жыл бұрын
You're god damn inteligent !!
@Marv3Lthe1
3 жыл бұрын
-"Say my name" -"Heisenberg" -"You're goddamn light"
@ashokedu4597
3 жыл бұрын
I'm the FIRST😭😭😭😭😭
@ashokedu4597
3 жыл бұрын
@@MysticLGD i don't understand?
@Concordeagle
2 жыл бұрын
Excellent example of the duality of light. Can you do the double slit experiment and demonstrate how wave functions collapse when observed?
@mweisend
3 жыл бұрын
How do the results change if the razor blade shutter is coated with one of the near perfect black cloths or paints you have shown in previous vids? A comparison to near perfect white would also be interesting.
@amirariamatin9219
3 жыл бұрын
Amazing video. I like to know more. If you could conduct an experiment explaining reasons for why energy and time cannot be observed fully accurately simultaneously. THANK YOU
@guytech7310
3 жыл бұрын
Try with a polarizing filter that is perpendicular to the razor blade slit & placed between the laser & the razor slit.
@RijuChatterjee
3 жыл бұрын
To anyone who might be confused, this IS "just" diffraction; the point is that the observed diffraction pattern is *consistent* with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
@varchastime8048
3 жыл бұрын
I have an exam tommorow on social but I’m here watching the action lab instead P.s I’m enjoying every moment of it
@TheSlimCognito
3 жыл бұрын
Great video as always. Love how you explain things. I would love to see a video explaining why a glass of water moves on its own on a table. I understand stand it's a seal with compression of the air but I would love to know more about it.
@glintongordon6811
2 жыл бұрын
I don't understand much but I love how you explain things
@rawdeluxe
3 жыл бұрын
Omg i was eating an actual 🥝 while watching this!! Also, one of my fav subjects, awesome experiment and video!
@petrospis432
3 жыл бұрын
I have a question, doesn't the slit opening length need to be close to the wavelength to demonstrate these effects ? I am asking because we already see the effect when the slot is obviously much much larger than 700 nm (red). Thanks :)
@robomatt1600
Жыл бұрын
This is because it is not really showing the Heisenberg effect. Just a mirror funhouse the size of a razor bevel.
@lenin17301560
3 жыл бұрын
Is this Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle? YOU‘RE GODDAMN RIGHT
@aziremperorofthesands6369
3 жыл бұрын
4:35 so you might have exlpained this but I must have missed it. anyway, this is an interference pattern. But I was wondering where it came from. normally an interference pattern is made when you shine light from 1 source through 2 or more slots. they then interfere with each others patterns and create this lot area and dark area pattern. but the laser in this case was being lit through a single slot. so how come we see the same pattern?
@SaebaRyo21
3 жыл бұрын
One of the best visualization of one of the toughest principles appear in Quantum Mechanics! ❤️
@BCowcorn
3 жыл бұрын
I think you need to use something non-reflective instead of those razor blades. I could see the reflections off the edges. I wonder if there is some reflection bouncing between the blade edges then getting through. Maybe, very carefully, paint the blades with some of that really really black paint you had until you can see no edge reflections at all, then repeat the experiment. (I'm aware of the effect you are demonstrating, but the variable still needs to be eliminated.)
@masklessninja
Жыл бұрын
Totally agree!!
@adelelopez1246
3 жыл бұрын
It is diffraction, but diffraction is a result of the uncertainty principle too! The uncertainty principle is actually an inherent thing about waves, it's not just a quantum phenomena. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform#Uncertainty_principle
@dragoscoco2173
3 жыл бұрын
The beauty if this is that with binoculars and a mosquito mesh you can actually observe the same effect (in a cross pattern) by looking at far point like light sources. But when you focus the binocular on the mesh, trying to observe where the photon goes through, the diffraction disappears as the light source gets out of focus. Also to compound the experiment you can observe the disappearance of the mesh pattern while looking at a far light source by placing a paper with a tiny hole (as big or less than the mesh) over the eyepiece and looking through it.
@simonleonard5431
2 жыл бұрын
Really nice explanation of HUP. Cleared up a thing I was always uncertain of....
@namanmehra3570
3 жыл бұрын
Cool diffraction pattern
@hellbusterdragon
3 жыл бұрын
All I learned about Hiesenberg's Uncertainty principle was neither position or velocity of an electron or any other particulate matter could be determined accurately together. So, this is really interesting.
@gabor6259
3 жыл бұрын
Check out Sixty Symbols's video on it.
@hellbusterdragon
3 жыл бұрын
@@gabor6259 thanks, I will since I need this equation and the quantum theory related equations for entrance anyway.
@austinesmanuel7981
3 жыл бұрын
CONSTRUCTIVE CRITISIM: It was nice to know things but personally i only have a general idea of what the uncertainty principle is which states that "the position and the velocity of an object cannot both be measured exactly, at the same time" but couldn't relate or link the content to help me understand the concept better Rest bro i always love your video they are amazing and intuitive.
@ShinjiCarlos
3 ай бұрын
I totally agree with the initial hypothesis of knowing position and spread, since spread means change in velocity direction. But then I started wondering: "well this is just Huygens' principle in action." Then I started wondering whether this isn't just a way of quantization of the Huygens' principle.
@blipco5
3 жыл бұрын
Action Lab... You should make a video explaining why every time you want to close the jaws on a crescent wrench, you turn the thumb wheel in the wrong direction. Every time!
@nonideal
3 жыл бұрын
Random person: So you're telling me you can squish light but also can't? Heisenberg: You're goddamn right.
@BigReddthehebrew
2 жыл бұрын
Thats a very dangerous slit experiment sir! lolol Nice video!! I was definitely not Uncertain about learning Physics here *terrible pun lololol*
@alexbrik-ey3lm
3 жыл бұрын
i love how at 0:48 you can see on the board the explanation of the last video experiment
@shoking9825
3 жыл бұрын
Me: let me find something to watch while eating The action lab: can you squish light Me: damn i rlly wanna watch that
@NuyoricanJoseph
3 жыл бұрын
Literally did the same thing, wanted to watch something while I was eating and saw this video in the recommendations. Turned that instant ramen noodle sesh into a fine dining experience 10/10
@cyborgsharma6824
3 жыл бұрын
The bright and dark pattern is because of Diffraction through 1slit. The further we reduce the size of slit, the fringe width increases as diffraction becomes even greater.
@lakshminarayanc2195
3 жыл бұрын
James's videos hit differently when u actually understand what he is speaking awesome
@207DannyBoy
3 жыл бұрын
The next gen Bill Nye right here, I’m pretty sure that reference has been made already lol but for real, when is this guy getting his own show on television?!?!
@Raul-xe2yj
3 жыл бұрын
This guy is a good teacher
@K_Tech
3 жыл бұрын
@The Action Lab It is diffraction, not Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. It's 2 different things. It doesn't matter if the wall is fluorescent or not, the light is still behaving like a wave here.
@user-zo8ep5qp1s
3 жыл бұрын
Now I feel like I've wasted my 1 hour in physics class..... Well I learned a lot right now with this video 🤯🙏🙏🙏
@wubba_lubba_dub_dub
3 жыл бұрын
Time traveler: *slightly moves the chair* The timeline: squish that light
Пікірлер: 1 М.