Thank you to Ritual for Sponsoring this video. Get 25% OFF your first month at ritual.com/arvinash
@patnystrom6414
Ай бұрын
Do they sell the red pill or the blue one? 😊
@AIChameleonMusic
Ай бұрын
lol you didnt wanna mention your pill is based on a EXTREME BIAS but thats cute...lol I get why...lol SABINE may not however. lulz
@MorarjiPeesay
Ай бұрын
Wave spread is due to quantum gravity and particle gravitates by observer 😅😅😅
@priyakulkarni9583
Ай бұрын
When particle single photon released, how does observer device captures ? Photon speed is speed of light??? Observer device shoots another photon, To detect photon? When photon when not observed is it in wave form because of quantum gravity? When observed its gravity changes and hence particle?
@rickfrombohemia9550
Ай бұрын
@@priyakulkarni9583 Yeah that's what Roger Penrose says. When the superposition/wave is "too heavy", the spacetime curvature it creates shrinks it into a dot-like particle.
@Rob_AMX
Ай бұрын
Schrödinger Equation: “It may look complicated… and it is” Appreciate that Arvin 😆
@jr.bobdobbs
Ай бұрын
And yet he had to dumbed it down to be about energies. It is not about that.
@maxducoudray
Ай бұрын
@@jr.bobdobbsSlack!
@Create-The-Imaginable
26 күн бұрын
@@jr.bobdobbs What should it be if he didn't dumb it down? 🤔
@Pixel-Wisp
Ай бұрын
So basically, we don’t know exactly where the particle actually is before we measure it, so we came up with a mathematical formula that expresses this “where it might be” as a probability wave. We can say the same thing about tomorrow’s weather. There is a 30% chance it might rain, or a 70% chance of being a sunny day. Until it actually happens, we don’t know for sure, so we use a probability to describe it. When we do measure the electron, of course then we know where it actually is, so the probability prediction is no longer applicable after that. The mind bender is that, the double slit experiment proves that this probability wave that we made up IS actually happening in reality before we measure the particle.😮
@TheGraviton
Ай бұрын
You should reach "The Theory of Raikons"
@Mahesh_Shenoy
Ай бұрын
Loved the video, especially the part where you debunked the misconception that superposition is NOT the same thing as being at multiple locations at the same time. But, on a similar line, saying ‘electron goes through both slits’ is also a gross over simplification! Infact if you use any words to explain what the electron is doing, we will end with a misconception. And so I think the most accurate way to think about it is that the electrons are not going through either of the slits. They are not going through both. They are also not going through neither. This exhausts all the possibilities we can think of and yet, the electron is doing something involving both slits. And that something is termed a quantum superposition. And that’s that. You can’t articulate what quantum superposition is using any language (except math). You can only ever tell what it is not!
@PoopsieSquirtle
Ай бұрын
Hahaa I love that comment, that's an Idea that could have gone past me for a long time as a mere enthusiast.
@TWALBEVA
Ай бұрын
Indeed, superposition is our inference about experimental results, rather than a phenomenon that can be directly confirmed through experiments. There is no experiment that can prove superposition, or show that a quantum particle can simultaneously pass through two slits, or that superposition is canceled upon detection. These are all imprecise statements with no experimental evidence to support them.
@Hacker4748
Ай бұрын
Basically, the slits and their properties affect the probability wave?
@mikelouaillier1997
Ай бұрын
@@Hacker4748 yup, but nobody ever illustrates the fact that most of the probability cloud is reflected back toward the emiter
@mikelouaillier1997
Ай бұрын
That's true Mahesh, but you know as well as he does that it's always a compromise between clarity and accuracy. In fact, this is the first time i've seen anyone show a more accurate depiction of what the probability cloud actually looks like going toward the slits. He just closed up a glaring omission in almost every video i've ever seen. Of course it's true that, as the Buddhists say, the moment you open your mouth, you're off target, but they still have a great deal of literature that i'm quite grateful for. And speaking of Koans, nobody has ever addressed the stern-gerlach paradox. Maybe you should do a talk about that.
@dirtymike4894
Ай бұрын
I should've taken the blue pill.
@sn3232
Ай бұрын
😂
@rickfrombohemia9550
Ай бұрын
I feel like I took both...
@NiranjanNanda
Ай бұрын
Well, you took neither 😂😂…I mean blue being observed as blue and red observed as red…😅
@dirtymike4894
Ай бұрын
@@NiranjanNanda 🤣"Schrödinger's Pill?"
@amihartz
Ай бұрын
I think people should read Schrodinger's book _"Nature and the Greek and Science and Humanism."_ Schrodinger had originally argued for using the wave function to replace Heisenberg's original formulation of QM where particles don't have real states between interactions and only have real states in the moment of interaction. Schrodinger hated this, saying "I do not believe the electron hops about like a flea." However, Schrodinger realized that introducing the wave function to fill in the "gaps" between interactions just introduces a new "gap" between the continuously evolving wave and its "collapse" upon measurement, and thus in that book Schrodinger argues in favor of returning to the Heisenberg picture. QM is far more intuitive if you treat it like this and all the "paradoxes" have simple explanations. The only thing that is _real_ is the particle's state during an interaction, there is no _reality_ of it in between interactions. If you accept this one premise then the rest of quantum mechanics follows without introducing a fundamental role for measurement, spooky action at a distance (nonlocality), particles being in two states at once, collapsing wave functions, a multiverse, some sort of special role for the conscious observer, so on and so forth. All of QM follows from just one principle that reality is made up of events and not autonomous objects and that objects "hop about like a flea" between interactions predictable by mathematical laws.
@JohnDoe-bq9tq
Ай бұрын
Thanks, that answers a question I've been having for a few years. I've had a working knowledge of QM at about the level of this video for decades. I did not realize there was a "measurement problem" until I started watching KZitem physics video's. What problem? I just didn't get it (I still don't). If you assume a particle to exist as something like a probability wave, isn't what the experiments show exactly what you'd expect to see? Why are we not done here?
@GeoffryGifari
Ай бұрын
"The only thing that is real is the particle's state during an interaction, there is *no* reality of it *in between* interactions." Hmmmm... what if the interaction is "on" all the time? like between electrons in a heavy atom? or constituents of a solid?
@salahlamsaoub7753
Ай бұрын
@@GeoffryGifari those electrons would be interacting as probability waves and then you’d still need to measure them to figure out their state forcing them to be localized and collapsing the wave function, so the problem is the same.
@salahlamsaoub7753
Ай бұрын
Btw the original comment is a great explanation of the measurement problem and I commend you for the lengthy explanation.
@GeoffryGifari
Ай бұрын
@@salahlamsaoub7753 hmmm but at what point does interaction between subsystems count as a measurement? why can't we say that electrons in an atom measure each other? how big/separated should a system be until interaction counts as measurement?
@Notdave29
Ай бұрын
Meanwhile quantum mechanics says, “Yeah, well, you know, that’s just like uh, your opinion man.”
@DrDeuteron
Ай бұрын
dude.
@fig7047
Ай бұрын
I don't think nature has that dismissive quality than humans have sometimes. I just think it is shy and doesn't offer up information about how it works easily.
@brendawilliams8062
Ай бұрын
@@fig7047yes
@DaveMiller2
Ай бұрын
Quantum Mechanics just wants it's rug back.
@brendawilliams8062
Ай бұрын
@@DaveMiller2 seems like you’d have to do a fence war with crystals and symmetry. Take no prisoners.lol
@TheNorgesOption
Ай бұрын
The critical issue is the question, "What is a particle?" Arvine Ash correctly highlights that the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics focuses on detection rather than the particle itself. In this context, a "particle" is the portion of a wave that we can measure. The distinction between classical and quantum waves lies in how they can be observed. With classical waves, you can assess the entire wave-its height and length-by observing it along the beach. In quantum mechanics, however, you can only pinpoint the "particle" (or measurement) at a specific point on the beach. Note * that doesn't mean, the wave disappeared during the measurement, it means we can only interact with the wave at one point.
@rickfrombohemia9550
Ай бұрын
So something like taking a snapshot? From what I've understood so far, a quantum "particle" is the tiniest excitation/disturbance of a quantum field.
@sn3232
Ай бұрын
You can actually measure "quantum wave" at any point, that's what screen in double slit experiment does. The difference with "classical" wave is that the measurement is such a strong interaction it actually changes the state. Thus it can only be detected once and during this detection it is changed by the interaction. That's quite contrary to what you wrote, that "wave doesn't disappear".
@sn3232
Ай бұрын
@rickfrombohemia9550 If you take a snapshot of a classical wave you would see the whole wave on the picture. With "quantum wave" you would see only one particle in a specific place, this is shown on 3:50, except for the part, that "wavy thing" on the video is not detectable. To reconstruct the wave you would have to repeat the experiment many times, taking many snapshots. If you then put the dots, representing a particle on the same picture, you will see, that some positions are more probable. That's why it's sometimes called "probability wave". The process is shown on 6:53. PS: This video is only concerned with quantum mechanics, which operates with particles, and does not say anything about their nature. Notion of a particle as a quantum field excitation is coming from quantum field theory, which is a different discipline.
@rickfrombohemia9550
Ай бұрын
@@sn3232 Maybe a particle can be in more places at the same time, but since it's actually a quantum object, it means something different and more abstract than in our classical world. We just don't know how much different I guess. We can't imagine it, just describe it mathematically.
@TheNorgesOption
Ай бұрын
@@sn3232 I am trying to distinguish between what we know and what remains uncertain. We do not know if there is a round ball or "particle" in the traditional sense. In fact, I doubt the existence of any round ball; it seems more like a point where two fields interact and exchange energy. What we do know is that there is an energy exchange occurring at a tiny point within the detector. Moreover, when we sum up these energy exchanges, the overall behavior resembles a wave. However, this is unlike any "classical" wave we've encountered. While this doesn’t rule out the possibility of it being a wave, it suggests that it's unlike anything we've experienced with our senses. Could this be a "fourth-dimensional" or higher-dimensional wave within the fabric of space-time? We don't know for sure, but it seems plausible and potentially testable.
@binbots
Ай бұрын
Particles before measurement exist in a future state. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where one observes it from will be the closest to the present moment. When one looks out into the universe they see the past which is made of particles (GR). When one tries to measure the position of a particle they are observing smaller distances and getting closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start trying to predict the future of that particle. A particle that has not had an interaction exists in a future state. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse is what we perceive as the present moment and is what divides the past from the future. GR is making measurements in the observed past and therefore, predictable. It can predict the future but only from information collected from the past. QM is attempting to make measurements of the unobserved future and therefore, unpredictable. Only once a particle interacts with the present moment does it become predictable. This is an observational interpretation of the mathematics we currently use based on the limited perspective we have with the experiments we choose to observe the universe with.
@ilonaszep3275
Ай бұрын
Thanks for great explanation, does it also mean that past has influence on future , and future on the past, as some sort of looping?
@Razor-pw1xn
Ай бұрын
This will be very interesting. In the future.
@amihartz
Ай бұрын
I think people should read Schrodinger's book _"Nature and the Greek and Science and Humanism."_ Schrodinger had originally argued for using the wave function to replace Heisenberg's original formulation of QM where particles don't have real states between interactions and only have real states in the moment of interaction. Schrodinger hated this, saying "I do not believe the electron hops about like a flea." However, Schrodinger realized that introducing the wave function to fill in the "gaps" between interactions just introduces a new "gap" between the continuously evolving wave and its "collapse" upon measurement, and thus in that book Schrodinger argues in favor of returning to the Heisenberg picture. QM is far more intuitive if you treat it like this and all the "paradoxes" have simple explanations. The only thing that is _real_ is the particle's state during an interaction, there is no _reality_ of it in between interactions. If you accept this one premise then the rest of quantum mechanics follows without introducing a fundamental role for measurement, spooky action at a distance (nonlocality), particles being in two states at once, collapsing wave functions, a multiverse, some sort of special role for the conscious observer, so on and so forth. All of QM follows from just one principle that reality is made up of events and not autonomous objects and that objects "hop about like a flea" between interactions predictable by mathematical laws.
@awesomedavid2012
Ай бұрын
This is very interesting and I'm glad you posted it. I'm still trying to fully wrap my head around this viewpoint. There are major questions that are asked by this, such as, what does this imply about gravity and the other forces? This seems to imply an inherent asymmetry between the future and the past which may be fundamental or consequential. Can we then talk about forces moving things from past to future or vice versa? Gravity is an effect in the past acting on the present I suppose. But the quantum forces, would we say they act in the future or the present? And which direction do they tend if any? And is this an absolute future or a relative future? If I measure a particle in the present, does that destroy its quantum properties for other observers?
@Bassotronics
Ай бұрын
Causality = “C+1” and not just “C”. It’s observed with black holes that “trap” light itself because the pull is faster than the speed of light.
@ליאורפ-ה8כ
Ай бұрын
Thanks for the video. I usually watch your videos and really enjoy them, but for this video I have a couple of comments: 1. A measurement is NOT just an interaction. Inside a solid numerous electrons that are in superposition are interacting, but none is measured. Also two hydrogen atoms interacting with Van der Walles force are not being measured, but they still interact. In fact, there is no equation showing what a measurement is (there is no equation describing wavefunction collapse). 2. If you take Schrödinger’s equation seriously, meaning that you take it as really describing reality, then a superposition is the existence of “multiple histories” of the particle. Once it interacts with a macroscopic measurement apparatus, each part of its superposition becomes entangled to it and to its numerous degrees of freedom, generating a practically random phase to its part of the superposition. Once you make many experiments with superposition states that have random phases between them, they no longer interfere with each other (decoherence). In some way all the measurement possible outcomes co-exist but they can no longer interfere with each other. But again, this is if you take the Schrödinger equation seriously and not merely as a calculation tool only. 3. The wavefunction being a complex number has nothing to do with it being non-physical. In fact, one can formulate quantum mechanics without complex numbers, it will just be very cumbersome. Furthermore, even a pendulum amplitude and phase can be described with complex numbers, and it surely is physical. In summary, all while one ignores the measurement part and treats it like magic, then one gets to failed and inconsistent interpretations.
@maitlandbowen5969
Ай бұрын
I would like to see Arvin Ash comment on all you points. I tend to agree with your summary (though I don’t know much / I’m certainly no expert). 🍂🍃🌈
@karlkarlsson9126
Ай бұрын
Finally someone who gets it. I recommend watching a video by Eugene Khutoryansky called "Quantum Measurements are Entanglement" here on KZitem.
@sn3232
Ай бұрын
For your first point. In video it is said that measurement is an interaction, it doesn't imply, that all interactions are measurements. For example, in double slit experiment you can measure a particle on the slits with light. It will break interference picture, as mentioned in video. But ONLY if light's wavelength is actually less than the distance between slits, so that you can certainly find out through which slit the particle have passed. Otherwise the interference picture would not be broken.
@rutger4131
Ай бұрын
@@sn3232 What needs to happen at the slits is entanglement between multiple degrees of freedom. Amplifying that entangled state and collapsing it is a measurement. It's the collapse we don't fully understand. You are correct that it is possible to have interaction without measurement.
@mikkel715
Ай бұрын
The statement at 7:14, "this can only happen if the electron goes through both slits at the same time and interferes with itself"' Presents a solid conclusion about a phenomenon that still puzzles us, or in fact is unknown.
@Kfjebfu65
Ай бұрын
True
@anywallsocket
Ай бұрын
no. watch an actual simulation of a quantum particle and it will be self-evident how this happens -- the wavefunction or wavepacket indeed behaves like a wave.
@rickfrombohemia9550
Ай бұрын
@@anywallsocket It behaves/manifests like a wave, but actually isn't and we don't or probably even can't know what it really is.
@anywallsocket
Ай бұрын
@@rickfrombohemia9550 what do you mean you can't know what it really is? you mean you can't relate it directly to something you're already familiar with? have you seen the simulations? that is what it really is, it is what the mathematical equation is modeling.
@taylormatthews3767
Ай бұрын
@rickfrombohemia9550 it seems a little beyond the physical little instead of blatant interaction it appears to be "behind" regular matter like a deeper layer and beyond the 4th dimension
@robertbutsch1802
Ай бұрын
“The math of quantum mechanics does not describe the universe.” All the mysticism surrounding QM disappeared for me when I realized that we have no math, no physics at all, to describes the unobserved quantum world. The wave function and the Schrödinger Equation only describe the classical view of things.
@listonheinz9103
Ай бұрын
I know this video is made for dumbbells like myself, but my brain still has difficulties understanding what’s going on.
@civwar64bob77
Ай бұрын
Don't feel bad. Feynman said, “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.”
@salahlamsaoub7753
Ай бұрын
If I were to summarize the video: we don’t know what particules are or where they are before we interact with them, we can only calculate the probability of their location.
@anywallsocket
Ай бұрын
it's okay it is explained confusingly anyway, like he keeps showing particles prior to measurement, and also shows waves made of particles? like dude, we have real simulations showing what the actual wavefunction looks like, be it one particle or many...
@karlkarlsson9126
Ай бұрын
To make things easy I usually tell people that, try to think as particles not existing until they have to. The wave before a particle is a wave of probability for potential particles that will come into reality when it's forced to. Even if this may not be how it really works, no one really knows yet, it's a good start to understand the weird implications of Quantum Mechanics.
@rickfrombohemia9550
Ай бұрын
@@karlkarlsson9126 But how can potential/"unreal" interact with actual/"real"? Doesn't it have to be actual in the first place in order to interact (i.e. exchange energy)? If it is indeed potential, shouldn't we use different term than interaction?
@ahsanmohammed1
Ай бұрын
Arvin Thank you for these great videos. Much appreciated. Please do a video on the technology and method used to measure these particles. They say, “see.” How do you “see?” Thanks
@dhudach
Ай бұрын
I'm not a scientists, just someone interested in the strange world of quantum mechanics. Over the past 30+ years I have read many, many books on the topic written by reputable scientists and authors. You have essentially summarized all of them in this video. Outstanding. You've managed to lay out the problem piece by piece in layman terms without sacrificing some technical areas. But I have a question. You talk about the electron wave approaching the double slit and when it hits the screen we know its location. What is the electron when it is fired toward the screen? Is it a particle that turns into the wave? How do we send electrons to the screen and do they start as particles or waves? It's like the story of the little boy walking down the street holding a burning candle. A wise man approaches the boy and wishing to teach him a deep lesson and make him think, he blows out the candle and asks the boy, "Young man, where did the flame go?" The young boy thinks about it then replies, "You tell me where it came from and I'll tell you where it went."
@ezhb1nj
Ай бұрын
In your example there are two instances where the position of the electron is known: when it is emitted, and when it hits the screen. Both of those can be considered interactions (or observations.) At both those instances the electron acts like a particle. In between those instances you are not interacting with the particle, so it is acting like a wave. It is in between interactions that an object acts like a wave, and it is at the point of interaction that it acts like a particle. There can be many interactions in the lifetime of an object (say, an electron), so it can alternate between the wave and particle behavior many times.
@dhudach
Ай бұрын
@@ezhb1nj Ok thanks for shedding some light on this for me.
@sunsparkle8443
Ай бұрын
What I got out of this video is that the electron in its wave state is energy organized a certain way in a particular area. When in this state, it has continuous energy level (amplitude) changes throughout the 3d volume that this electron exists in, thus called a wave. I'm guessing that it is an active, projected energy in the realm that we live in and can perceive to an extent, and was latent ( or maybe active) in another realm that we do not understand, before it was projected. The device with the cathode was what projected this latent energy into our realm that we perceive and live in. Also, perhaps the electron quantum field is an energy field that is organized in a way so that it acts as a mechanism that is a kind of aperture between both realms. or maybe this latent energy is part of the electron field itself. Or, maybe this latent energy induces latent energy of the electron field to become active. The electron wave comes into our realm by means of the quantum electron field mechanism. When it interacts with a photonic device, such as a flourescent screen, the interaction changes the electron wave's organization in a way so as to cause a particle effect on the device, which, maybe, could be called a further induced manifestion.
@danielpaulson8838
Ай бұрын
Imagine this. You are in complete blackness with nothing around you. A light emerges behind you, shining in all directions. But we aren’t looking at it. It is there, particles of light, traveling in waves. But we don’t see any of it. The reason is that we need the photon to interact with our retina in order to observe it. The eye is a directional antenna tuned to the EM energy we call light waves. When the photons bounce, reflect, off of something in front of us, or if we turn to look, we see it is there. It always was. The photon has to hit the retina. This next is not a great example of quantum but illustrates the mental concept of superposition and interaction. We are bathed in local radio waves from radio stations. As long as we don’t tune in to it, (observe) we do not know it’s even there. It is said to be in a superposition. (Bad example again) But when we tune into it, we interact with it. We observe it. The thing is, other observers from other locations can observe the same field. Light or radio. The field does not collapse through observation. We simply grab one particle. And when we launch it. It can only move in it’s wave form. The frequency of it.
@bulentkulkuloglu
Ай бұрын
Lay man here But let me explain what I understand on the subject An electron is a small packet of energy in a tiny volume of 0 dimensions. So small you can't measure it's volume. You know its exact location when you are firing it, and you know it's location when it hits the screen. It between you don't know it's location. The electron is not a wave in between, but the information of it's location is a probability, and the wave pattern is directly related to this undeterministic property of it's location. This is very unintuitive but a law of nature due to Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Other than that we don't know much about the exact shapes, forms of quantum objects. Are they waves themselves in that infinitesimally small volumes? Maybe, string theory postulates them to be wiggling objects, like a wave. But string theory is mostly a dead end, some other theory in the future might still prove them to be waves themselves well. This is a short summary of what my limited understanding of quantum physics. I could elaborate some more but not much more, due to limits of what I know.
@capella8632
Ай бұрын
Nice animation....I will ask my students to watch 😊
@timjohnson979
Ай бұрын
My boxed cat feels better now. Thank you, Arvin!
@timjohnson979
Ай бұрын
@thezone5840 They came before you called them. 🙂
@erongi233
19 күн бұрын
Thank you for that. For a layman trying to get to grips with waves and individual entities it is very helpful.
@KaiseruSoze
Ай бұрын
QM works within it's own context. It's a description of a limited range of phenomena. It's a placeholder waiting for a finished theory of everything. We use QM because we're not gods.
@Skidhi_eats_BK
Ай бұрын
@vidhinara6403
24 күн бұрын
Congratulations on 1m subs!! Love your videos sir they provide so much knowledge ❤❤
@b.s.7693
Ай бұрын
1:13 damn it Arvin... I need both to feel the superposition 🔴🔵
@TheGraviton
Ай бұрын
Just a suggestion, you should reach the theory of Raikons.
@emergentform1188
Ай бұрын
I'm thinking that probably what's going on can best be thought of in terms of quantum field theory. There is no particle but rather a peak in the field in a given area, like how a wave in the water has a highest point. The wave, with a peak as all waves have, isn't isolated but rather spread out over a given amount of space, and constantly moving around at high speed. So when the measurement is made we are simply seeing the highest point of the peak, wherever it is in that instant, and the interaction of taking the measurement has a flattening effect on the rest of the wave so we just see it as a point. So I'm thinking the supposed particle/wave duality is really just a contradiction created by our perception. There is no particle, it's all just waves, and we just label the highest peak of the wave as a particle since it has a definite position once we destroy the rest of the wave by the interaction of measuring. But I'm no particle physicist and I'm basically just talking out of my arse here lol.
@epicmusicproductions4015
15 күн бұрын
Reality is rendered to conscious beings on the fly, based on probability. But it has to be consistent with information that already exists in the system
@3X3NTR1K
Ай бұрын
Lately I've been visualizing quantum particles as tangles of field lines rapidly jumping around spacetime. It's... Probably not right, or at all useful, but i havent yet been able to shake it with learning more science. It is kinda nice having an intuitive sense for quantum entanglement rhough, even if it's ultimately wrong.
@kelvinbishop3169
Ай бұрын
Does the photon always appear on the far screen? Or does it sometimes hit an area left, between, or right of the slits?
@kelvinbishop3169
Ай бұрын
@ozzymandius666 Thank you!
@patrickf.4440
Ай бұрын
Good video. I especially like your explaining the limitations of such animations. Unfortunately, many science explainers do not fully explain the full meaning and the limitations of such depictions.
@Regalert
Ай бұрын
Ok, Morpheus. Red pill, please.
@physics_enthusiast_Soorya
Ай бұрын
2:01 "Multiple states at the same time" Yes, a Gross simplification. Superposition has always disturbed me till now, and I hate how widely the information is spread.. And also, "The math of quantum physics doesn't describe the math of the universe, it describes what we'd get if we made a measurement" ❤ Thanks for the beautiful line, Arwin Ash. I also approve your statement because it is just to simplify our caluclations.. Also, a big thanks for the animation for the 3D probability density of the electron through the double slit! I really wanted it 😄
@Spark47742
Ай бұрын
New arvin ash videos are getting more and more enjoyable to watch now we are getting to know what actually is rather than it's popular explanation. I've also liked the quantum gravity video which says in reality gravity is a force after all.
@FanisBartzis
Ай бұрын
My personal answer before watching the video: Superpositioned particles don't look like anything,as looking at them is measuring them, thus breaking the superposition
@esra_erimez
Ай бұрын
A police officer pulled over Heisenberg, and asked “Do you have any idea how fast you were going?" Heisenberg re[lied, “No but I know precisely where I am.” The cop says “You were doing eighty miles an hour.” “Oh great!” says Heisenberg. “Now I’m lost!”
@denissavgir2881
Ай бұрын
Are you certain thats what happened?
@civilianrightwing
Ай бұрын
If the particle is hitting a particular spot when observed is correct. And another particle hitting another spot is also correct because both incidents happen at different times. When we are observing it is a particular time we are observing and not the particle. If we rewind the recording that particle will hit that spot. If I am travelling between New York and London every day. Now on a particular day I am either in New York or london. But for an alien zooming in on me from Andromeda galaxy he cannot be sure where i am until he measures the exact time down to the particular day of the year. Since he is looking at the past he will always see a wave of probability. So in the quantum world if we are observing at the pico sec time scale every thing is a certainty but at the per minute scale every thing is a possibility. So it is impossible to observe anything at its current state. Every thing we observe is the past even though it might be only a second back. 🤔😎🤠
@tomphillips3253
Ай бұрын
Good explanation.
@sagarnikam6059
Ай бұрын
@ArvinAsh If the wave function does not represent the quantum particle but actually the probability of where we can find the quantum particle after measurement, then how does these probabilities interfering with each other on other side of the slit?
@ArvinAsh
Ай бұрын
well, the wavefunction does represent the particle, but it's something that we can't visualize because for one thing, there is an imaginary component. What we can visualize however, is the norm of the wavefunction which represents the probability of finding it for example in a certain location. The point is that the probability wave does seem to interfere before we make any measurement. When we make the measurement, the quantum wave resolves to a point-like particle.
@SouravRockzYT
Ай бұрын
Suppose, electron is point like particle but because of it's field it's acts like wave. So, when we observe it, it's always in a single position, it was never in multiple position, the field causes it to behave like wave. It's just my thought, anybody don't take it seriously.
@MarshallBero
Ай бұрын
Good explanation of probability wave. But why do particles still behave like waves when the detector is turned on but not recording???
@hartwigkoppi901
3 күн бұрын
I`m really excited about this experiment. I see that the representation of the electron before passing the double slit is not the final model. I would try to explain why and how I`m trying to see it. I`m imagine that elementary part of quarks is physically energy formed by a wave (sine or cos) to an string or a kind of cloud of energy. So that for example the electron is pure energy formed to a string. And imagine that this string is made of water, just to understand the behavior/property of that energy string. This energy string representing the electron is generated a bit randomly referring to the location of minimum and maximum of the wave to the position of the double slit or the position of the measurement device. (so a bit randomly in space). I have no model for the form of that string, so it can be 2 or 3 dimensional, but it is at minimum described with properties like amplitude and frequency. I currently have no idea about length and thickness of that string. Also if we assume that is a cloud I can not say what diameter it has. When this energy string is passing the double slit is interacting with the edges of the slit and then is loosing the wave form, is forming itself to an drop of energy like the water string when you touch it with the top of a nail. So the electron is always there where you measure it. At that place where you touch the string or cloud of energy with the measurement device. So the energy is condensing to a drop of energy around the top of the nail. (There is no superposition in the classical way, only the energy of that electron is spread in a cloud, so where you touch the cloud there the energy is condensing to a ball) When you make a measurement you also interact with this string or cloud of energy and form it to a ball like a water drop (collapse of the wave function). So the energy of the string tries to get the lowest entropy. Because this measurement is done before the slit you get at the screen only 2 strips because no wave is passing the slits, but only an energy ball. This works until a defined complexity of the mater. So I’m imagine that the lowest particle of mater is starting to be an energy formed to a string or a cloud with a sine function with a specific amplitude and frequency. The next level is composed by 2 ore more energy strings to new string with a wave function composed of the 2or more sine o cosine functions. Also we have a higher level of energy.
@schmetterling4477
2 күн бұрын
That was a lot of failed imagination.
@IFAbilities
Ай бұрын
I TOOK BOTH PILL. Now i can live and balance my life.
@vishnuisgreat471
24 күн бұрын
Good video, but how does the observation/observer affects the superposition?
@ArvinAsh
24 күн бұрын
human pbserver has no effect, but measurement or interaction which is another way to say irreversible energy exchange with something, does affect it.
@vishnuisgreat471
23 күн бұрын
@@ArvinAsh ok thanks.
@falloutmule
Ай бұрын
This is not the video i expected to be red pilled at but I'll take it!
@0neIntangible
Ай бұрын
Instead of firing through 2 parallel slits, I may suggest experimenting with firing at an "X", or "XX" crossed slits to test for chirality or supplemental effects.
@Langkowski
9 күн бұрын
What if this is all about relativity? If a spaceship travels close to the speed of light, it will be shorter and shorter in the travel direction. This is not an optical illusion, it really does get shorter. But from the astronaut's point of view, everything feels like normal, even if the spaceship is flat as a sheet of paper, and the time is going extremely slow on board. It all depends on point of view; the astronauts, or an observer. Imagine a molecule as a probability wave. From the molecule's point if view, all of its surroundings are condensed and focused into a small point around or in front of it. The molecule itself doesn't feel different or spread out. From an observer's point of view (assuming it was possible to observe the wave without making it collapse), there would be an enormous amount of identical particles that were really just the same particle, overlapping each other whereever there was possible for it to exist. The more spread out the wave is, the more or the surroundings are focused into the small point, which makes you think of non-locality. When there is a collapse, or whatever you want to call it, the molecule will be located as a specific location. The contracted surroundings are no longer contracted and focused into that point, instead the point will only show the environment that is really there.
@GeoffryGifari
Ай бұрын
If measurement is just interaction, what kinds of interaction count as measurement? wouldn't interaction also be implied in the "interaction Hamiltonian" part of Schrödinger equation? but that's just unitary evolution, no measurement takes place?
@willarn1
Ай бұрын
An Arvin Ash red pill... Just what the doctor ordered. 💊
@felixccaa
Ай бұрын
I do not need Yt to b like TV: ads in a row interrupted a few times with content
@smallpeople172
Ай бұрын
As a photographer I’ve always felt it’s easiest to picture measuring quantum particles as akin to cranking up the shutter speed to capture a fast moving object, but now it’s stationary, you know precisely where it is but you can’t tell any motion apart, and as such you no longer know where it’s going, you could crank down the shutter speed somewhat and still get some motion blur, but it wouldn’t give you all the info on motion. Maybe it’s similar to this principle but the breakdown between the two happens over a much narrower range with quantum particles.
@stormapproaching
Ай бұрын
That sounds like an analogue of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, but not really wave function evolution/collapse.
@smallpeople172
Ай бұрын
@@stormapproaching oh, sorry, I must have gotten confused and forgotten my brain somewhere
@thesoundsmith
Ай бұрын
Not a bad analogy. The observer wave synchronizes with the observed wave so it appears solid, like the props on a movie can appear still when synced to the frame rate. But they are ALWAYS ONLY waves, particles are a figment of our reaction time..
@cabanford
Ай бұрын
Quantum Pill. Having both until I choose.
@advaita-buddha
Ай бұрын
Wtf is this, intresting but..... I need to learn some more physics and maths to understand this well.
@bankafouf
Ай бұрын
And some rational thinking? Would not harm ( samthing) hhhh ect I think?
@advaita-buddha
Ай бұрын
@@bankafouf off course
@DragonKingGaav
Ай бұрын
Almost 1M subs!!!
@ifstatementifstatement2704
26 күн бұрын
Once humans thought they were the centre of the universe. Now they think them observing reality creates reality. How egocentric can you get?
@cabanford
Ай бұрын
Nice! Great explanation of something that is usually poorly presented. A bit like you've measured the probability wave of bad KZitem quantum physics clips and resolved it to a single point 😂
@inxiti
Ай бұрын
Popsci video giving popsci explanation while saying other popsci videos give popsci explanations, and are therefore incorrect. ??? This is just as “incorrect” as those popsci videos even if it’s more “correct” than the guru videos.
@cliveburks
Ай бұрын
Useful helped me move my understanding about what happens before measurement ie I was wondering how do we know what is happening before collapse of the wave if we don’t observe what is happening.
@MoinAna-i3m
Ай бұрын
What is the mechanism of which way detector? How does it work? What is it and how can it detect and confirm which slit the electron is gone through? Can’t find satisfactory explanation anywhere. If anyone have more information please let me know
@duran9664
Ай бұрын
❌Because “scientists” failed to build a precise detector to detect the exact place of a particle, they cannot claim the particle exists in multiple places 😒This is so lazy & pathetic excuse 🤢🤢🤮
@alexalekos
Ай бұрын
1:25 accidentally stopped watching the vid at that moment and only today I remembered to watch the rest 😂
@richardedwards9044
Ай бұрын
What value is an intuitive explanation if the intuition is gained by introducing incorrectness?
@richardedwards9044
Ай бұрын
4:00 minutes in, I feel like this video was made for me. Great job.
@TheUltimateSeeds
Ай бұрын
I suggest that whatever the electron is doing (or what it "looks like") as it moves between the double-slitted wall and that of the phosphorescent screen is the closest we can come to understanding what an actual Kantian "noumenon" is all about. In other words, it is something that is "real," but can only be imagined and never directly perceived.
@jimmyzhao2673
Ай бұрын
red pill/blue pill choice, *awesome introduction*
@familiarossi6311
Ай бұрын
Can you have any “measurement” without a conscious agent taking note of the measurement either directly or through some technology? If not, then consciousness absolutely has to do with this wave/particle conundrum
@KBos72
Ай бұрын
I'll be honest, the "simple" explanation never made any sense whatsoever to me, and I thought I was just dumb. Good to see that I'm not.
@hbofbyu1
Ай бұрын
What is the behavior of the electron's probability? I know it will always be too small for us to measure without collapsing it, but is it theorized that the electron's behavior is consistent, with time or is it truly, truly random?
@Bert3737b
Ай бұрын
If I understood well the animation, the particle in superposition is in someway "spreaded" across a probability cloud restricted to a 3D (spherical) region within a specific size... Is its size defined by quantum interference cancellations, such way that reached a specific distance, or radius, the probability goes zero?
@robertvondarth1730
Ай бұрын
It seems to me, that the missing variable in this question, is to full define “look like” Because what someone looks like is dependent upon an experience event. And to *experience* is not fully understood.
@ilonaszep3275
Ай бұрын
Mayby it does not know which slot to take, till it interacts with something
@gratmian6749
28 күн бұрын
you said that quantum object can't be in two places at the same time and after you are saying that single electron goes trough two slits same time. Contradiction?
@ArvinAsh
28 күн бұрын
It's one probability wave that goes through both slits, as shown in the last few minutes. Once it interacts with an irreversible energy exchange, it condenses to a point on the far screen.
@shoot-n-scoot3539
Ай бұрын
Thanks for clarifying the "superposition" meaning. Intuitively, superposition defined as existing in multiple places at the same time seemed very wrong.
@voicenadar1762
29 күн бұрын
"garbage" just after Deepak Chopra photo is appropriate.
@theobserver9131
Ай бұрын
"Look like before measuring".... ouch. I just can't. I need to go lay down now.
@dmofOfficial
Ай бұрын
Alright, I'm finally at peace with the Schrodinger equation. But maybe saying "probability of where the partical is" is not the right way of thinking about it. Instead, how about "the potential places the partical can manifest when is forced to interact, otherwise, it remains a wave", because that's what is happening, right? Probability is a slippery word in the quantum world, and so is measure. Feel free to disagree, argue, or set me straight. I'm confused too! ;-)
@Selenium188
Ай бұрын
Great sir salute
@guruyaya
Ай бұрын
Why, oh why, didn't I take the blue pill...
@Wtf-eva
Ай бұрын
If particles only occupy one position at a time or only take one path then what’s the double slit experiment about? Definitely commented before it got to the part with the double slit lol
@djayjp
Ай бұрын
It entirely depends on which interpretation of QM one considers. Some posit a fully deterministic view which have particles with fully localized (though unknown) positions and momenta at all times. In such interpretations, however, there are non-local causal effects. Arvin, you keep, incorrectly, definitively stating Copenhagen as the one and only QM when it is not. It may NOT be "random" whatsoever.
@SkyGodKing
Ай бұрын
I was expecting something new or intereseting here, but like you mentioned this is just bog Standard Copenhagen interpretation, which doesn't even have a hypothesis or anything around what wavefunction collapse is. There is no evidence there is a wavefunction collapse at all, so I prefer interpretations that are fully deterministic and just have wavefunction evolution.
@anitax206
Ай бұрын
It is simple, it is just rendering. No multiple locations. Most of the scientists are desperate to find material but there isn't. It is just information within a ruleset.
@MarshallBero
Ай бұрын
Well put
@kaimax07
Ай бұрын
Somebody help me. How can we completely rule out consciousness if it takes a conscious being to see that there is a single dot on the screen.?… I think he’s probably telling me the truth that it doesn’t take a conscious being, but this paradox bothers me.. help me.
@ArvinAsh
Ай бұрын
The dot would be there whether someone looked or not. There are interactions going on all over the universe like this with no eyes observing them.
@kaimax07
Ай бұрын
@@ArvinAsh I think you’re probably right… but I can’t shake the fact that you’ll never know if there’s a dot on that screen unless you look at it.
@BarryKort
Ай бұрын
It might be helpful to introduce the notion that a periodic function (e.g. a sine wave) has a phase that (in the case of QM) is unknown beforehand. When a wave comes upon an edge or diffraction grating, the angle at which diffracts depends on the phase. If you use radio waves (instead of visible photons), the phase might well be known, and one can appreciate that the interaction at the edge of diffraction grating depends on the phase of the sinusoidal E-field. Not knowing the phase gives rise to the Schrödinger probability. If we knew the phase, we wouldn't need to model it as random.
@threeMetreJim
Ай бұрын
I also thought like this, but also wondered if a radio wave photon has a too great a wavelength to also posses quantum properties. Lots of radio frequency (and electronics) equations also use the square root of -1, letter i to represent phase.
@HyzersGR
Ай бұрын
I still don't understand how a single particle can interfere with itself when only one is fired through the slit at a time. Even if you only fired one per week, after a decade the interference pattern is still the result.
@haraldriegler6000
Ай бұрын
So I know this is absolutely not the correct way of looking at it, but I somehow imagine that as long as a particle doesn't interact with something, it exists outside of time. Thus, it could follow its wave function everywhere in 'no time' (which makes it seem for us as if it were everywhere at once, even interfering with itself), but then when the interaction does occur, it connects back with time, and voilà, there randomly materializes the particle (aka the wave function collapses). I am aware that this is just a mental crutch, but it kind of helps me think about it that way. For what it's worth 😏
@backwashjoe7864
Ай бұрын
I think this is one of the things Arvin was trying to teach us. The concept that “a single particle can interfere with itself” is how it gets presented to us, but this is not the best (right?) way to think about it. The particle does not interfere with itself. Instead, the particle’s wave function takes on an interference pattern after passing thru the slits. This happens because the function is a wave. Any wave passing thru the double slits takes on an interference pattern. His point in the video is that the wave function is not the particle. The wave function is a mathematical model of the particle.
@backwashjoe7864
Ай бұрын
If you send sound waves or water waves thru a double slit, then they will take on an interference pattern. If you use math to send a sine wave thru double slits, it will take on an interference pattern. That’s just what waves do. Including the quantum wave function. This was known before the work in quantum mechanics.
@backwashjoe7864
Ай бұрын
This is my understanding from watching his video and from years of watching other videos on the subject. I hope that I’ve learned the correct lesson from here and described things correctly. Edit: having read more of the comments, and thought about other videos that I’ve seen, I will amend that what I posted is my takeaway from this video. But that other ideas exist about this topic, and some might be better.
@haraldriegler6000
Ай бұрын
@@backwashjoe7864 The reason I resorted to the above analogy was that while the mathematics are completely clear (interference of the wave functions), I've always tried to find some mental model for me as to what could actually be happen in a measurement in the physical world. Obviously, nobody knows as physics has been debating the measurement problem for ages, and so what I described above is 99.9999% complete nonsense :)... But it does feel kind of intuitive for me (remaining aware that it's my own BS conjecture ;)).
@caryd67
Ай бұрын
Red pill please
@7john7able
Ай бұрын
Very very very good 👍
@KalashKat
Ай бұрын
But this explanation still doesn't explain "why measuring it" changes the results or behavior.
@SuperYtc1
Ай бұрын
The intro with the pills was so funny.
@Nuzen
Ай бұрын
Is the last animation contradictory to your initial statement that "it does not describe the reality of the present"? A "probability" becoming actual material "interference" means there is indeed a "reality" somewhere that is affecting the outcome that we observe. So in what realm does that probability/interference exist if we can observe its consequences? I am, however, a Many Worlds advocate: "if we just interpret the Schrödinger simply, it's clearly pointing to many worlds." So, a superposition does not describe the single reality of a single present, but it does indeed describe the global wave function of the totality of all universes (our universe is in a superdeterministic superposition itself).
@jensschaefers
Ай бұрын
Thank you so much! :-) This explanation is a real „eye opener“.
@m3talHalide-rt2fz
Ай бұрын
All you need is entropy. Plank time is the universe's SLA on processing entropy transactions, which need to be registered. While I used to think in terms of interactions, or changes in the possibility space, Im realizing that observer interactions need to lead to a change in entropy, which sorta commits the universe state to memory - entropy is one-way - but if that doesnt occur, the universe can keep the threads running in parallel, and you get double slit patterns. I engineer. I often use the thought experiment: the universe has some constraints, and seemingly never halted. Relativity and time dilation are a great way to prevent too many interactions from happening at once. Keeping with the exercise of being in the developer's head, without truly unlimited resources, Id want to use parallel threads and limit state updates as much as possible, and if there's no point, why bother. Well, there needs to be a quick way to determine if an interaction needs to be evaluated, and the singular one-way, 'if not null,' is entropy. If there is any change in entropy, it becomes fundamentally causal, but by definition, an interaction is fungible if there isnt a entropy change in the system => superposition/wavefunction thread, entropy affecting interaction == waveThread.join(main)
@koszalekopalek9068
Ай бұрын
1) What would the results (of double slit experiment) be if there would be detector installed, but not running (say, not pluged-in to power source). Can accuracy/power of the detector be modulated, so that it would influence the resulting pattern on the screen? 2) Can human being be a detector? Theoretically, someone looking at the experiment interacts with the electrons (or not?). Does looking/not looking at the experiment change the pattern on the screen?
@uriituw
Ай бұрын
You can’t see electrons.
@PrathameshPawar-fu4nl
5 күн бұрын
Sir please answer What if we try to find the position of photon before passing through double slit.??
@lepidoptera9337
3 күн бұрын
Then you absorb that photon and that energy is never going to show up after the slit anymore.
@PrathameshPawar-fu4nl
3 күн бұрын
Hey man you are right But I mean just observed And not interacting in its energy If possible. By this way We can find it's location.... And... Can you relate it with uncertainty. This is the thing what I want to say
@lepidoptera9337
3 күн бұрын
@@PrathameshPawar-fu4nl There is no observation without irreversible energy loss. That's caused by the third law of thermodynamics.
@PrathameshPawar-fu4nl
Күн бұрын
Ohh I don't know that thank you
@vitorbalbio
Ай бұрын
If there's no reality on the wave and it's only a probably wave how it interfere with itself to form the interference pattern? In other words, how do a probability wave (a mathematical instrument used to calculate the possibility of results in multiple outcomes) interfere with itself and with a physical object in a way that it can produce a physical outcome (the position where the particle is measured) ?
@dudeabideth4428
Ай бұрын
Can someone simply explain non locality and how bells inequality validated it ? Yes I have seen Arvin ashs video on the subject . And I still haven’t got that
@uriituw
Ай бұрын
Please put up a trigger warning before showing Deepak Chopra’s face!
@KaliFissure
Ай бұрын
Unless there is an imposed directionality in pretty sure a photon is the ENTIRE sphere, and not just a section of arc in the direction of detector. But what is accuracy?
@j9dz2sf
Ай бұрын
But in a photon, is there a link between the probability wave and the electromagnetic wave? Two waves for a single object: are they the same wave?
@rogerg4916
Ай бұрын
If you were watching that double slit screen when the measuring device was turned on would the pattern on the screen suddenly change from multiple lines to only two?
@ArvinAsh
Ай бұрын
no. Looking at the screen makes no difference. Only the interaction with the measurement device makes a difference.
@rogerg4916
Ай бұрын
@@ArvinAsh So you would never actually see that simple double line on the screen whether there was a measuring device or not?
@ArvinAsh
Ай бұрын
@@rogerg4916 No, I am saying the double line would be there whether you looked or not. The looking does not affect the result of the experiment.
@rogerg4916
Ай бұрын
@@ArvinAsh I guess what I'm asking is does the measuring device being on actually affect where the particles impact the screen?
@donwald3436
Ай бұрын
what does "look" mean?
@DrDeuteron
Ай бұрын
timestamp?
@csabakoos1650
12 күн бұрын
I guess what I am trying to say in a nutshell is All form of energy is coupled to or with space, part of space if you like. Charge, magnetism, gravity, weak force, strong force, μ0, ϵ0, ect. That is why it seems spread out and wavy. The interference pattern reveals information about one of the weird properties of space itself, not the particle. When you make a measurement you obtain information about the particle instead. Could μ0 and ϵ0 represent the speed limit of time itself?
@tilak6429
5 күн бұрын
Thank you for clarification sir, I am really grateful. I wish to study quantum mechanics in future. Finding out all of this would have messed me up. Thank you again🙇
@masashabshi900
Ай бұрын
See for example Sir Roger Penrose “The Road to Reality “ where he lists pages 782-783 , it is not that he presents the views of MEASUREMENT PARADOX so neutrally but also respects and not deletes the fact that there are other explanations, and he, not like Mr. Arvin , puts his finger on really the area where he makes his reader seeks more knowledge instead of hindering them by trashing even physicist views . PEN ROSE SAYS : “… the issue of ontology is crucial to quantum mechanics… page 785
@quantumwormholes8246
Ай бұрын
If you really want to understand the quantum world and all its weirdness, check out the following books: "Understanding Our Unseen Reality" by Ruth E. Kastner (2015) and "Helgoland" by Carlo Rovelli (2021). They swiftly describe the transactional and relational interpretations of quantum mechanics, are a joy to read (even awe-inspiring at times), and can really change the way you think about reality. I cannot recommend them highly enough.
@androane
6 күн бұрын
I think it has to do with consciousness. Because observing/measuring it with a mechanism, implies hitting the particle with a photon and getting the information with our eyes. But if we don’t measure/observe it, it doesn’t mean other photons in the environment are not hitting the particle! Thus, it is observed by the environment.
Пікірлер: 817