For people confused about how "measurement" or "observation" changing an electron (because I was), It was told to me that a measurement is a physical action that interacts with the electron, such as a detector shooting another particle at the electron, it is not just looking at it, the electron is being externally interacted with.
@dannykusuma2431
2 жыл бұрын
But the electron interact with the air along the way, but still is a wave.
@oreowithurea5018
2 жыл бұрын
@@dannykusuma2431 yea, and electron probably interacts with many other material in its surroundings
@andreanicastro5131
2 жыл бұрын
I’m not sure but I’m not really sure this is why… I got it explained as, the change of information you get from a system interacts with the rest of information in the system
@LeTtRrZ
2 жыл бұрын
I wish more people knew this, because this is exactly right. It’s not magic, it’s just smacking one wave with another, which of course is going to cause interference. Also, this phenomenon of wave-particle duality only appears (prominently) when there is little ambient interference. This is why quantum computers must be cooled to near absolute zero to work properly.
@reubennb2859
2 жыл бұрын
Anti-superdeterminists be like 'nope, it just happens, it's magic'
@FundamentallyExplained
2 жыл бұрын
*Addendum*: if all electrons are the same, what about their wave frequencies and shapes? I wonder how, I wonder why this video has suddenly started to blow up, but thanks everyone for watching! Over the past few days a lot of comments have pointed out a very specific problem with this video and I would like to clear that up. The issue is this: I say that all electrons are the same, but also that they are waves in a field. Waves can have different shapes, so why should they still be identical? Waves in a pool can have different wavelengths, so what about that? Those comments are absolutely correct! Particle waves can have different shapes, different frequencies, etc. For example the energy of a particle dictates which frequency its wave has. This is also the case for the photon as you may know, which is the particle that forms light. Shorter wavelengths (= higher frequencies) have higher energy. The same is true for any other particle. So, why is it still fair to say that all electrons are, nevertheless, the same? Well... it boils down to a difference in particle *properties* and particle *state*. You are freely able to change the state of any particle, but you can't do that for its properties. You can change the energy of a photon, but not the fact that it has no charge, for example. Same for electrons: all electrons are negatively charged, all have the same mass, and all have a spin of 1/2, but they can have different energies and different spin states (up or down). The state of the particle influences the shape of the wave, but the shape of the wave has in no way, shape or form influence on the fundamental properties of the particle. This is why I used the factory comparison at 01:38. However, I am fully aware that I did not add this explanation to the video (which -- in hindsight -- I definitely should have) and that I made this issue only worse by drawing all localised waves the same (see for example 08:49). They aren't necessarily, so I do entirely understand that this caused some of you to raise their eyebrows. Sorry for the confusion, but I hope this clears things up a bit ^^.
@ignacioniveiro5471
2 жыл бұрын
I don't really get it. You are basically saying "all electrons are identical, except for their energy and spin". In my view, that makes them different! It is basically saying "they are undistinguishable because they share some properties, and the properties they don't share are conveniently ignored or stepped aside". So I will conveniently call the shared properties "fundamental" (just because I am saying so, not because they are more important than any others"). In my view, that method of thinking is like saying... "Ok, all squares are identical. Sure, they can vary in size and color, but they also share the fact that they all have 4 corners and 4 orthogonal sides of the same length. I will call "having 4 corners and 4 orthogonal sides" the fundamental properties of the square, while color and size are not (just because I say so). Hence, I have proved that all squares are identical and indistinguishable from each other." What is the difference between my reasoning for squares and your reasoning for electrons? Why is spin or energy or phase or whatever other property conveniently ignored? That's what I want to know.
@edwardmacnab354
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the addendum . I am one of the ones that was going to jump in on just that point , a very important point . An entire video on just that might be beneficial to you ?
@FundamentallyExplained
2 жыл бұрын
Imagine you have a factory that makes cars. It is absolutely perfect, the cars it produces are identical up to the very last atom and can not absolutely not be distinguished from each other. In effect, this means that you could swap two of those cars and nobody would be the wiser. Of course, you could take one car for a ride and drive up the highway. At that moment you could say: "HA! See?! The cars are not identical; this one is going at 120 km/h while yours is still standing still at the parking lot!". Or you could even go one step further and say something similar in the parking lot already: "yeah, but they are not the same car, are they? This care is standing over here, but that car is over there." Both statements are true, but they are true in the sense that it is just the cars' states differs. You could, again, just swap the cars and nobody would be able to tell you did so. Of course, you'd need to swap their states then as well (having a stationary car at a highway is not advisable), but that is something you can do. The state of the car (it's speed, position, rotation, etc) are not fundamental properties of the car. In the same way: you can freely change the spin and energy of a particle, but these changes will never affect the fact that the fundamental properties of these particles. You CAN exchange two electrons and swap their states, and nobody would know you did so. The question I posed was "why are all electrons identical" and I agree that a question like "why are all fundamental properties of all electrons the same" would conceptually be more correct. Your comparison with squares is correct, if you could freely change the size and colour of squares. In that case the size and colour would be the square's state, while the number and size of its angles are the fundamental property. I think, however, that it is worthwhile to notice that the properties of squares that you mention (number of corners and the size of their angles) can be changed freely. True, it is not a square anymore if you do so, but you could do so and get a different shape. For particles we know this is not the case. There simply exists no particle that is like an electron, but with a LITTLE BIT less mass. Like, you will never encounter an electron with 99% the mass of all other electrons. The relevance of the question why electrons are the same is therefore exactly that: why is nature so picky in the fundamental properties of particles? Why is there no variance there? Perfect factories don't exist, but nature apparently does not care about that and makes perfectly identical particles all the time. Does this answer your question :-)?
@florincoter1988
2 жыл бұрын
Electrons are not waves, as they are not particles. We, the people of the Science, describe some experiments using wave math tools, and others using particles states in some field. We do not know "what" electron, or anything other, is. In a dark room one person receives a punch in the face. He can describe a lot of things, he can show bruises, b ut can tell absolutely nothing about the fist... Why is everyone trying to wrongly explain subjects that can be learnt correctly from a book, is beyond my comprehension.
@edwardmacnab354
2 жыл бұрын
@@FundamentallyExplained The very reason Quantum mechanics was invented is because we cannot see what goes on at the level of an electron , thus we have to create a model that best fits what we CAN observe and use that as our blurred eyesight . There might be a lot of things different between any two electrons .It's even possible that if you could have just one electron It might not even be like an electron as we know it .
@BitwiseMobile
2 жыл бұрын
John Wheller postulated that there is only one electron in the entire universe. He discussed this with Feynman over a phone call. Feynman interpreted that further to say that positrons are actually electrons (or the single electron) moving backwards in time. Yoichiro Nambu applied that to the annihilation of matter/anti-matter pairs and stated that there is no annihilation, but that it's just a change in direction of time.
@donksx
2 жыл бұрын
The fact that I randomly read this a few years ago is the only reason I could kind of understand the movie 'Tenet'
@xnadave
2 жыл бұрын
I had not heard of this before. One electron zipping back and forth in time, and the entire universe "now" is basically a snapshot of that particle interfering with itself and heading in different directions. I like that. Kind of gives a new, fun definition to "recycling." :)
@jdrmanmusiqking
2 жыл бұрын
Idk man ive heard that as well and it really gives off "does a tree falling in the woods with nobody around make a sound" and "is water wet" kind of vibes They all sound like cool thought experiments at first but breakdown when held up to scrutiny. What we know fundamentally about reality just couldnt work if one electron was zipping through time Water is wet. A falling tree always makes a sound. And there are more than 1 electron in the universe These three questions baffle me more than any other as i have no idea how anyone can logically argue the opposite answers. All arguments for just sound like mental gymnastics and self aggrandizing to make oneself seem "deeper" than their peers. Sometimes the simplest solution really is the correct one folks. Water is wet. Falling trees make a sound. There is one electron *field* NOT 1 electron
@xnadave
2 жыл бұрын
@@jdrmanmusiqking Sound is the interaction of a pressure wave with a transducer - like an ear drum. If there's no ear (or microphone), then there is no sound. Just pressure.
@jdrmanmusiqking
2 жыл бұрын
@@xnadave Pure stupidity. Thats just a mental self jerk to make dumb people sound smart. Sound is just energy passing through a medium whether it be air, walls, water whateva. Sound is the thing that hits your eardrums but HEARING is the result of sound hitting your drums. Whether you hear sound our not it still exists. Animals wouldnt have evolved to hear sound if it wasnt a thing already omnipresent in reality. All living things AND non living interact with sound. A tree is literally alive dude its a freakin forest there are living things everywhere. Microbes interact with sound People really out here conflating sound with hearing smh. Sound produces HEAT that can be measured. Sound has literally been encoded on light dude. Sound EXISTS outside of human existence and to think otherwise is pure stupidity and arrogance. Speaking of which, why doesn't anyone ask, "If someone turns on a light and there is no one around to see it, is the light on?" Same nonsense. SIGHT is when where RECEIVE light. HEARING is when we RECEIVE sound. Can we please stop the nonsense
@FundamentallyExplained
4 жыл бұрын
During the writing of this episode I came across a website with an interactive simulation of the double slit experiment. In the initial version of the script this website was covered, but it did not survive the rewriting process. I still think it is a nice simulation though, so I wanted to drop the link down here: phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/wave-interference/latest/wave-interference_en.html For the double slit experiment, choose "Slits" as operation mode. Then: - click the button on the right with a bullet-like object on it (which selects the "laser" mode) - select the "screen" checkbox - from the dropdown select "two slits" and then click the green button on the left to start the experiment. The "slit width" and "slit separation" sliders on the bottom control the slits and thereby the pattern that you'll see on the screen.
@spondulix99
2 жыл бұрын
Another explanation is that the wave function simply represents the state of our current knowledge of the position and momentum of the electron. When a measurement of the position and/or the momentum of the electron is made, our knowledge of the state of the electron is modified correspondingly. The wave function (representing our new current knowledge of the state of the electron) is perforce altered. This alteration is sometimes referred to as the “collapse of the wave function”. In this interpretation, it is not that something tangible and ponderable has “collapsed” but simply that our knowledge of the state of the electron has been altered. When the state of our knowledge changes, the function encoding that knowledge, the wave function, changes instantly upon completion of the measurement. The wave function may go from being widely extended over space to being highly localized. It is sometimes argued that this implies that every point within the original spread out wave function must have communicated instantly, violating the limiting speed of light, with every other point in the wave function. Specifically, so that all points that are not to manifest as the now localized electron position can “know” that they must not themselves also manifest as the position of the electron. This explanation assures that the electron never manifests in two or more locations simultaneously upon the “collapse” of the wave function initiated by measurement. However, interpreting the wave function simply as encoding our current knowledge of the position and momentum of the electron fully and satisfactorily accounts for the instantaneous “collapse” of the wave function upon a measurement, completely circumventing the need to consider information as having been transmitted faster than the speed of light across the entire wave function. Even classically, if an object is initially known only to be somewhere within a 1 mile interval, knowledge of where the object is located is spread out over the entire 1 mile interval. However, immediately upon locating the object within the 1 mile interval, knowledge of the location of the object “collapses” instantaneously from being spread out over the 1 mile interval to being specific to perhaps within a few inches. No superluminal information whatsoever has been communicated over the 1 mile interval. In this interpretation, the key difference between classical physics and quantum mechanics (QM), which is at the very heart of the “weirdness” of quantum mechanics, is that, in QM, knowledge of the state of a physical system, as encoded by the wave function, is capable of interfering with itself. It is this interference with itself that explains the pattern of parallel bands in the double slit experiment, and that makes QM so counterintuitive. Classically, of course, knowledge does not interfere with itself. As to the question of why all electrons are absolutely identical, the idea that this arises from the characteristics of a putative “field” simply kicks the can down the road. In my opinion, electrons (as well as other fundamental particles) are all precisely identical because they are likely the quantized states of an as yet unknown physical system or phenomenon. Consequently, QM, as we currently know it, appears not to be a complete theory. The fact of the precise identities of the fundamental particles is screaming at us that we have yet more fundamental physics to uncover.
@sushmitasolanki8731
3 жыл бұрын
What an explanation....... fantabulous...Just loved it 😍 But at the same time I'm sorry to see your subscribers , this channel definitely deserves more than a million .....Just saw your first video and I have subscribed..... Keep making videos and keep "explaining Fundamentally"😊
@Blakearmin
2 жыл бұрын
I love finding good channels when they're still small. It's great to watch them take off
@dannyarcher6370
2 жыл бұрын
I'm 42 years old with a comp sci degree and this is the first time I've finally understood why the double slit experiment proves that quantum particles act as both a wave and a particle. THANK YOU!
@josephjames4326
2 жыл бұрын
You don't know WHY. You just know that they DO. Nobody knows why.
@florincoter1988
2 жыл бұрын
@@josephjames4326 This is true. Really true. Thank you for rare correct comment!
@florincoter1988
2 жыл бұрын
No experiment proves anything. Proofs exists only in Mathematics. In Science in general, and in Physics in particular there is only verification. Why? Because only in Math everything is 100% exact, while in Physics everything is governed by measurement errors, hence approximative.
@dannyarcher6370
2 жыл бұрын
@@josephjames4326 Read carefully. My statement did not say I know why quantum particles act as both a wave and a particle. Comprehension is important.
@dannyarcher6370
2 жыл бұрын
@@florincoter1988 See above. My conclusion has nothing to do with measurement nor mathematics. It was arrived at through logical inference, something that is pretty fundamental to computer science.
@TheRandomizerYT
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you for making me understand what the existence of "fields" for each 'particle' of the Standard Model meant.
@AbanoubMG
2 жыл бұрын
No one ever explained this topic to me like this. You're amazing!
@pladselsker8340
Жыл бұрын
I think this is one of the best double-slit experiment explanation video I've seen so far. Like you said, everyone else is confusing me with the "electron changing into a particle suddenly upon measurement". Seeing it as always being a wave, but that can change form (be it a very large and intricate one, or a very localized one) makes so much more sense to me. I think I can safely say that I understand how the double-slit experiment works now, thanks to this video. Thank you for making it! You're funny and entertaining, while still being able to convey your point properly.
@FundamentallyExplained
4 жыл бұрын
So... what got you interested in particles :-)? For me it was my high school teacher. I quite vividly remember a class in which EM radiation in the context of cell phones was covered. The idea that particles are everywhere, and that though they are invisible make up everything in the world was one of the most mind-blowing things I've ever heard (up until that point that is :P). It stuck, to the point that I am now doing a PhD in particle physics O:-).
@not_just_burnt
2 жыл бұрын
wait... youtube algorithm good for once? 🤨 i mean, subscribe me in! the artwork style and the silly jokes is my cup of tea
@LeTtRrZ
2 жыл бұрын
What got me into particle physics was the notion that superposition could be interpreted as evidence for the existence of parallel universes. Although I no longer believe that to be the case, my interest in particle physics remains strong.
@ankitminz5872
2 жыл бұрын
My mere existence
@mariepierreschrodinger4429
2 жыл бұрын
Your mom.
@mariepierreschrodinger4429
2 жыл бұрын
But for real, it's the KZitem algorithm and I love your sense of humour! XD Am now subscribed :3
@glennrager3684
2 жыл бұрын
Good explanation! What really blows my mind is that an interference pattern will show up even if the electrons are fired one at a time, say one per second. Is each electron interfering with future electrons? No. Feynman said we therefore have to accept that each electron has both a wave-like nature and must also be considered as an individual particle.
@secretjazz93
2 жыл бұрын
question: how do you 'fire' an electron if they're so small??? never seen an electron gun for sale anywhere lol
@sabkobds
2 жыл бұрын
@@secretjazz93 you just need a simple cathode tube for example. 😀
@hassanjawaid
Жыл бұрын
I watch the video and assumed you would have like 1 millions subscribers but you got only 10K. you deserve more bro. That is million subscriber content.
@VictorbrineSC
2 жыл бұрын
There was a hypothesis proposed by Professor John Wheeler from the graduate college at Princeton in 1940 known as the One-Electron Universe, trying to explain why all electrons are the same (I think the idea of "fields" came soon later in time). Wheeler told this to Feynman during a phone call, while Feynman (and Wheeler too) didn't take the whole hypothesis seriously, he did take the idea of an electron traveling back in time to become a positron, and thus this hypothesis, although debunked, proved crucial for Feynman's later work. The One-Electron Universe claims that every single electron in the entire Universe is actually the same exact electron, the same exact entity. An electron traces a "world-line" through time. On a diagram with time as the vertical axis, and space as the horizontal one, a particle moving through space would trace a world-line that always goes upwards but can move horizontally. This electron travels through time, back and forth, tracing a world-line that zigzags along the vertical axis of time. Since its word-line would appear like a zigzag on a diagram, if you trace a line which denotes a single instant, the world-line crosses it multiple times meaning that the electron existed multiple times in the same instant. Repeat those "crossings" many many many times and you end up with the existence of all electrons in the Universe, which are actually the same one. Again, this hypothesis is pretty much debunked, an both Wheeler and Feynman ended up not taking it too seriously, however it's such a cool f*cking idea, that every single electron in the Universe is actually the same entity.
@FundamentallyExplained
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah, I really like that story too 😃 It is on my list of "videos to produce next" and I think it will be the next one I will be working on after the current one is finished next Monday (I hope) 😄
@Frisbieinstein
2 жыл бұрын
The idea of fields goes back to the 17th century with Newton's gravity.
@TheRandomizerYT
2 жыл бұрын
Noone gonna talk about the absolutely awesome ending joke? "Sir, they ARE already charged :D "
@ParticleClara
4 жыл бұрын
Brilliant! This is a another wonderful physics video with nice humour (I'm still laughing at the closing scene 😂)
@FundamentallyExplained
4 жыл бұрын
Did I make this video specifically to make that joke? No. Do I regret making that joke? Hell no xD
@Lucky9_9
2 жыл бұрын
Figure k the
@MicahJKelly
2 жыл бұрын
This video is not scientific, and is something you slow an elementary aged student when you want them to believe that we know more than we actually do. How are smart people fooled by this stuff???
@sethaldrich7375
2 жыл бұрын
“Help, I was robbed by an electron!” “Sir, are you sure?” “Yes, I’m positive!”
@knaite
3 жыл бұрын
You deserve lot more subscribers and views! Keep it up! 👏🏼
@Sciencedoneright
2 жыл бұрын
The electron in the wizard robes is so cute, make plushies out of that
@sialaye
2 жыл бұрын
While I appreciate raising the question, but I do not think it explains the answer as stated below: 1 - Why waves should be the same? Similar to water, there can be different types/lengths/energy/frequency of waves. Why it is not the case with the electron field? 2 - While the water wave is the result of moving the water molecules up and down / left and right, what is the thing that is moved up and down by an electron wave? If the answer is the value of field intensity, then we have not answered the question of what is the field itself in the first place. Thanks
@SleepFaster18
2 жыл бұрын
My same thoughts!
@tiborbogi7457
2 жыл бұрын
Agree! He just push explanation behind electron field. Explained unknown with another unknown thing (concept). Or everybody is supposed to know what is electron field?
@FundamentallyExplained
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the great questions! 1 - Yeah... yeah that was something that I overlooked in my explanation. I have written a long-form answer to your question (see the new comment I pinned a couple of minutes ago), let me answer it also shortly here. You are absolutely right that electron waves can have different shapes and wavelengths. This shape does, however, not affect the fundamental properties of the electron. Yes, one electron can have a higher energy than another, but you will never be able to tell if I would switched their energies and switched their locations. Their mass, electric charge, spin etc. etc are all the same. When I say "all electrons are the same" what I *meant* was that all their fundamental properties are the same, not that they are all in the same state (i.e. all have the same wave shape). I could have definitely made this clearer, but I hope this clears it up a bit! 2 - You are correct that I did not answer this question in the video, if only for the fact that the question "what IS an electron" a different question is than the one I asked ("why are they the same?"). As discussed above, I should have been clearer and maybe named it "why do all electrons have the same charge" or something along those lines, but hey... you live and you learn ^^'. That being said: I do think that there is an interesting discussion to be had about your second question, so let me put in my two cents. The best description we currently have is that fields indeed are their own thing. A wave in a field is therefore indeed a local excitation in its intensities. At least, that is how we describe things mathematically. You could, rightly, wonder whether a correct mathematical description is also a description of reality. In other words: does physics make predictive models or does it really describe what nature *is*? This is a deeply philosophical question, to which there is no final answer. I agree that the video did not answer the question what the field is. I did that on purpose. Not that I don't want to tell you, but simply because we don't know. Based on the ontological line of thinking above you could even wonder if the field exists at all! Maybe it is just mathematics that provides us with good predictions about electron behaviour and that's it. We simply don't know.
@tiborbogi7457
2 жыл бұрын
@@FundamentallyExplained Much appreciated you answer.
@psichat
2 жыл бұрын
@@FundamentallyExplained as we're all constitued with electrons and elementary particuls, are we all the same deeply and our only difference is a matter of energy in each field ? (Don't know what to think about that)
@barryon8706
2 жыл бұрын
Those electrons look really happy. And here I thought they were negative.
@xnadave
2 жыл бұрын
"Shouldn't you be able to identify the electron that robbed you, sir?" "Sure. It's the one that collapsed." :D Great video - glad I found your channel.
@naveenraj4874
2 жыл бұрын
for a long time being a non-physicist and common man , trying to ponder on particles and field. This video is a perfect treat for my curiosity. Thanks man. I like your humbleness when minimizing the audio sound during the end, when speaking about your hard work. Lots of things to learn from you..
@Xvladin
Жыл бұрын
Ccpca!!]!pa!!!!!!!!!!!a!!!!!!!!pa!!!a!aaaaAcaAaaaaA!aaaca!"!a"!ca!!ca!a"aa!aac!"!aa"!"aca!acaa!!"!!aa!Ca!ACa!ca!"!ACacaaaa!aaaAAAAAaca!a!a"aacaA!A!caaaCaaCAa!aaacaaaaaaAAAAAACAAaa!aa"aa"a!caaAaaaacaaa!!!a!acaAaAaaa!aC!aa!aaaCaaaA""aaaAcaa!a"aaaAaaaaaaaacaAacaACAaaaAA"AA!ca!aa a acaaa!AAAaaCaaaaaa!!!aaca!"a!Caa!aa!a!"aa!aca!acaaaa!ca!acAC!ca!"A!C!A"AA"!!"aa!"!AC!"acaca!aAaacaa!aca!aa!"A"aCA!"!ca!"a!"!"!ac"a!a"a"aaac"aa"!"avaaaaaacaaAacaaaaaa!aaacaaa!aaAaaacaAAaAAaaACaaaa!aAaaaaaaaaaAcaaaaaacaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacaaAAaacaaaCaaaaaaCa!aaaaaAcaaaaaaAaacaaAaaaaCaaaaA!Aaaacaaa!a"aAcaaaaCAAA A aAaca!aAaAaacaAaaAa a aacaaAaAcaaaaaaaaaC!aa!Ca!a"aaa!aacaaaaaaaaCaa!!AAca!!aa!ca!aaA!ca!a!!AaCacaaaaAaa!"AAACAAacaa!aaaaaaaCaAacaaaaaaaCaca!acaAAacaaaacaaaa!ca!!caa!aA"aCA!Aa!a!aCAAAaacaa!!caaaAaaA!Acaaa A aaCA!AACA P! "!"aca!a"!!!aa!aa!aa!aaga
@darrenbrown7277
3 жыл бұрын
Great animations, it’s always amazing to find new channels with good content. Then binge watch. Thank you.
@alexandriahall2843
2 жыл бұрын
THE ANIMATIONS WERE SO GOOD thank you for making this!
@FundamentallyExplained
2 жыл бұрын
Nawh ☺ thanks
@orbismworldbuilding8428
2 жыл бұрын
Physics is one of my special interests (deep, at times obsessive passions) Also this video is great, i have never heard of fields described as a pool before but they really should be, this video was actually pretty intuitive and though I've heard similar all before, i think it finally cemented the concept of the wave-particle duality (that it's an illusion and is just the wave being localized afterwards). Great video ! ^-^
@Jenny_Digital
2 жыл бұрын
This is the first time someone’s explanation has been satisfactory to me. Thank you for pulling off the impossible!
@richardbennett4365
2 жыл бұрын
I don't think one can conclude an electron is a wave from its unobserved double-slit experiment result. One can, at best, state the electronic under these conditions behaves like waves behave.
@FermionPhysics
2 жыл бұрын
Yes, they are not actual waves. They always show up as particles
2 жыл бұрын
If it behaves like a wave, isn't it a wave? What else could be required for a wave to be a wave? 😅
2 жыл бұрын
That's.. yeah 😅
@sionnachdensolas9787
2 жыл бұрын
Why cant theybe particles that act ss waves, like photons?
@epelly3
Жыл бұрын
The difficulty of understanding quantum physics is what got me interested in quantum physics
@kokopelli314
2 жыл бұрын
The so called "measurement problem" is resolved when we understand that what we call a measurement is in fact an interaction.
@samuraidoge7284
2 жыл бұрын
But why? There are no measurement particles that mediate a measurement field. What causes the particle to change behavior when observed? It’s a deeper problem than just that. Is observation the same as measurement to begin with? It’s not as simple as an interaction, or at least said interaction is completely unknown to physics, the only two explanations being that there is simply a coin flip in the universe (copenhagen interpretation) or that a particle exists in multiple realities before it is observed when it is forced to branch off into a new set of multiverses.
@kokopelli314
2 жыл бұрын
@@samuraidoge7284 the "Measurement particles" or "measurement field" are usually photons that carry and transfer momentum. "Multiple universes" is a weak explanation and "Coin flips" invokes a simplistic statistical model. A more classical view would consider the superposition of wavetrains of "particles".
@samuraidoge7284
2 жыл бұрын
@@kokopelli314 but photons interact with electrons all the time don’t they? My knowledge is thin about Quantum Electrodynamics but measurement is a wider concept, I think, than just interactions with photons. What about interacting with massive matter, such as a wall. I believe they used a type of material that became luminous when in contact with electrons during the double slit experiment to display the wave behavior of the electron field. That is interaction with matter, not with photons I think. So how does measurement occur then. Even if the measurement problem is caused by photons, I haven’t heard any explanations as to how the photons force the electrons to display the properties of a particle. I suppose you could say it is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but said principle simply outlines the existence of this behavior and not why it exists. As for the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics I agree that the Everett Interpretation is very weak. However I do not think the Copenhagen interpretation is as much an explanation for quantum mechanics as an attitude for it. As far as I know, probability is not thought to be real but a consequence of humans being able to observe every detail of reality. This is contrasted by quantum mechanics. In which raw probability exists according to the Copenhagen interpretation. Because of this I feel that perhaps the Copenhagen Interpretation is simply there to encourage less philosophical inquiry into quantum mechanics by scientists and leave the philosophers to that job. Scientists should “shut up and caculate” under this attitude.
@kokopelli314
2 жыл бұрын
@@samuraidoge7284 as to the "Why" there is uncertainty around position and momentum, keep in mind that what we sometimes call particles are in fact wave phenomenon in what can be described as a tensor field. Every point has a potential vector with an indeterminate value, until some interaction with another wave produces new field values observed at the recording instrument. So every measurement can be broken down to a target "particle", production of a measuring "particle" usually a photon, the interaction between those particles, and the interaction between the modified measurement particle and the measuring equipment itself. Feynman diagrams capture these processes very clearly.
@wilhelmsarasalo3546
Жыл бұрын
When a bar opens an ion goes there and says: "last night here, I think I lost an electron". The bar tender says: "are you sure?" the ion says: "I am positive".
@laured.5161
4 жыл бұрын
Loved that intro!
@FundamentallyExplained
4 жыл бұрын
Hope you loved the outro as well ;-)
@bobgreen9897
3 жыл бұрын
@@FundamentallyExplained I did! 🤠
@zamalchi
Жыл бұрын
I nearly fell out of my chair at that last line
@richardbennett4365
2 жыл бұрын
Not only does "the electronic choose what it's going to be," the quantum eraser experiment result tells us that the election or photon has the ability to change during its travel depending on whether or not it will have been observed.
@krzysztofciuba271
2 жыл бұрын
BS! "photon" does not "travel"; it only ..oscillates up and down in an electromagnetic field! More (any) wave does not travel; it only transports energy and momentum (for electromagnet field; an "electron" is a term for the wave packet and not a material point )
@Tentin.Quarantino
2 жыл бұрын
“No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!” - professor Farnsworth. Gotta love Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.
@Helmutandmoshe
2 жыл бұрын
There still needs to be another level of explanation - why aren't there bigger and smaller electrons since they are waves in a field? Why can't that field support waves of different amplitudes and frequencies?
@kitstamat9356
2 жыл бұрын
Because any change in size of the wave would produce another type of particle.
@Helmutandmoshe
2 жыл бұрын
@@kitstamat9356 Each of the fundamental particles has its own field, about 15 different sorts of fields, each of them quantized into packages of energy such as electrons, photons, quarks, neutrinos, gluons, and Higgs bosons. So a larger wave in any one of these fields does not change its manifested particle.
@kitstamat9356
2 жыл бұрын
@@Helmutandmoshe Yes, that's what some experts in quantum physics often say, but I'm skeptical about it. I'm looking from philosophical point of view. If the multiplicity of particles is just emergent phenomena of something ontologically prior to it, then I'm expecting that the multiplicity will be reduced to less number of elements. But if each kind of particle has its own field, nothing is reduced. So for me it's more convincing that there is only one field and that different particles correspond to its unique wavelength in the field. This field is what is mythopoetically called "primordial waters" or "cosmic ocean".
@theobserver9131
2 жыл бұрын
You've been around for four years? KZitem needs to get with it and start bumping your videos! Maybe they just started doing that and that's why I finally saw you. Subscribed!
@coling8176
2 жыл бұрын
It’s great to see someone explaining something in a simple manner instead of assuming I have a PhD in physics 👍
@danielyuan9862
2 жыл бұрын
I bet if you are assumed you have a PhD in physics, then the summary itself is a sufficient explaination.
@CallMeWarg
Жыл бұрын
"Sir, sir, they qre already charged" you got me in a good mood by that
@nickpn23
Жыл бұрын
An addition to my store of barely-understood (if understood at all) KZitem videos on this subject. It's not you, it's me.
@Number6_
Жыл бұрын
Finally someone who is not pushing the stupid idea of particles, but understands the nature of waves and fields. You change the field and you change the nature of the wave.
@PaulHaesler
2 жыл бұрын
I think it was Richard Feynmann who pointed out that an anti-electron is the same as an electron running backwards through time, so it's possible that all electrons literally are the same electron bouncing back and forth through all of space-time.
@michaelgounaris9368
8 ай бұрын
Excellent Excellent Excellent. After listening to hundreds of other videos, this is the only one that has helped me further understand the concept of wave particle duality. I have subscribed to your channel and look forward to listening to your other videos.
@rbach2
Жыл бұрын
this video is a another great example of how, counterintuitively, Simple graphics are often Better than Amazing graphics
@DougDingus
Жыл бұрын
Great Video!! Frankly, I never really asked this question beyond the first time talking with people about particles. If they were different, then we would assume we are not looking at a fundamental thing. It would be an assembly of sorts. More than one fundamental thing glumped together somehow. Not only that, but we need them to be the same. Atoms need to always perform to spec, or we can't count on material properties and all sorts of stuff being consistent. Differences here may actually mean things like us wouldn't be able to exist. For me, it was learning about sounds, waves that helped the most. It's all sine waves man! Adding them together gets us all the sounds. The sine is a given sound in simplest, most pure, most basic form. Anything else that varies is actually more than one sound all added together.
@zidanefaisal5796
2 жыл бұрын
"Sir... Sir, They're all already Charged" kill me deep inside XD
@peircedan
2 жыл бұрын
The answer here may be completely right but it seems incomplete. You say electrons are waves in a field. How does that mean they must all be the same? In a general case waves can vary in amplitude.
@Ewr42
2 жыл бұрын
That's where the quantum in quantum field theory comes in. I suggest you watch "The ultraviolet catastrophe" by physics girl Basically, electrons come in discrete quantities, so there's no half of an electron. The only difference is where and when it is, it's not like a water wave, it's more like when you twist a rope around a pencil and can move it around. It's more like that kind of entity, anywhere you make a loop and put the pencil, it'll make something that you can move around in one dimension So it doesn't matter where it is, electrons are a type of entity that either is or isn't They don't have character or any variation, flavor, color or anything, they really just be discrete amounts of charge being manifested out of the electromagnetic field If they were different it wouldn't be in any way that matters, relevant, necessary or even something we could test for Since they're all the same, they're the same. It's kinda like the number 1, every representation of a #1 can be called a number one, just like every discrete quanta of electric charge is called an electron They're not like real macroscopic waves, basically
@peircedan
2 жыл бұрын
@@Ewr42 Physics Girl does a fine job but that does not answer the "why" question. It shows that light is emitted in discrete packages called photons. One can point out that photons are not all the same. Different photons have different wavelengths. The caption of this video is about why all electrons are the same. Not actually answered. edit Actually Electrons have at least three properties. Charge, mass and spin. The spin is always either +1/2 or -1/2. Charge is negative one. These are known due to observation.
@Ewr42
2 жыл бұрын
@@peircedan dude, honestly.. If you want an answer as to "why", you gotta look into the philosophy of physics, not physics itself. Observation itself is an open question due to the measurement problem and the fact that there's never been a quantum theory with the closest to a proper theory being the uncertainty principle. We define measurements, we invent names for it and undoubtedly there are symmetry breakings like those of Noether's theorem, but what is their true essence is but an open question which can never be fully answered The universe kinda just is what it is It's a great question which I do not feel qualified at all to answer if I'm being completely honest. But if you actually care about doing physics instead of philosophy, you really gotta just shut up and calculate, because somehow it gets results, even if the whole interpretation/theory behind it all is, in short, lacking. Yes some PhDs yelled that at me at uni, can you tell? They said I should quit and that "asking why" wasn't really proper physics. But anyway, things are starting to change and we already have people working on the foundations of physics now, but it's still just now being brought back from the days where natural philosophers actually called about the true nature of reality instead of merely how it plays out. Hope you're one of them, because you do ask deep questions, there's no denying that.
@Ewr42
2 жыл бұрын
@@peircedan you subscribe to Sabine, tibees, Derek, pbs spacetime... You know that already then You have great taste in KZitemrs May I interest you in some of my playlists? I gotta be honest, there's some trash in the middle of it, but just use your brain to filter out the bullshit. I say that because there's a lot of stuff on there that I'm sure you'll love I'm gonna subscribe to you, in case you ever decide to make videos yourself, I'm sure your interpretation of it all is well thought and valuable and I for one would love to hear it.
@peircedan
2 жыл бұрын
@@Ewr42 Hold on. I was talking about why only because that was what the caption promised. Anyway I essentially agree with what you are saying here. Always have had a fascination with physics but my degree is in Electrical engineering and my deepest interests are in electronics, technology and automation. Those keep me busy enough. Still I am always thrilled with new discoveries in physics.
@andrewbounds
2 жыл бұрын
You don't have to worry about electrons being the same if there is only one electron in the universe. I believe it's called the single electron universe. Basically it is a teleporting, time traveling electron that goes all throughout the universe.
@lickenchicken143
2 жыл бұрын
"the running man...ifestation of the electron field"
@randommcranderson5155
2 жыл бұрын
That electron’s name? Albert Einstein.
@peterjf7723
2 жыл бұрын
The one-electron universe postulate was proposed by theoretical physicist John Wheeler in a telephone call to Richard Feynman in the spring of 1940. The hypothesis is that all electrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a single entity moving backwards and forwards in time.
@Prabhu21
Жыл бұрын
best video i have seen on this issue
@bl8nc
2 жыл бұрын
Great video! I find it interesting that for every explanation of the double slit experiment where we say 'measuring' an electron's position' we never talk about how we're doing that. Does it not feel like that should be just as important as the overall experiment and worth mentioning? Keep up the great work, and thanks once again 👍
@woodpigeon7776
2 жыл бұрын
I enjoyed the little faces on the waves . Somehow helps me learn way better
Problem with the double slit experiment is kind of like if you’d shoot a drop of water, from under water through 2 slits sitting at the surface, you’d still observe a drop or a wave. And then pretend: all drops are perfectly the same. No they’re not, they’re still water. One water - One electron
@eagledove9
2 жыл бұрын
If the object hits the edge of the slit as it's going through, it will turn because it got bumped. I have questioned the double slit experiment many times before, and this just made me think of another problem with it. If the electrons are little balls or something, they would get knocked sideways at an angle if they bumped into either the right side, or the left side, of the slit as they were going through. They might have some kind of sticking that would cause them to curve or wrap around that edge, sticking to it as they moved past it, and then letting go, and landing in either the central bright area, or the bright area on the edge of the paper. The bright area directly in front of the slit is only for the ones that go through without bumping against any edges. Also.... (I've watched a little bit more of the video) the DEPTH of the slit matters, too. The electron can bounce around in there like a pong ball in the video game. It can bounce from one side to the other, depending on how thick the material is, and then come out at an angle, and the specific angle might be determined by the shape of the slit it's going through, so that it has a tendency to land in a certain place.
@Summer-of8zk
2 жыл бұрын
I heard a theory once which i liked that says that each fundamental particle field only has one particle, and that the particle travels backwards and forwards through time interacting with itself and other particles over and over again, instead of having a universe full of millions of these particles we only require 1 of each type as long as they can move about in time.
@VapidVulpes
Жыл бұрын
thank you so much for this video! thank you so much for such an elegant and simple and straightforward explanation for what our current understandings of quantum mechanics seems to be! at least as far as I am able to understand LOL
@paaao
2 жыл бұрын
The electron is an abstract idea. It's technically just a value of charge. The field you speak of is the dielectric field. It is the same field that makes light, matter, everything.
@genericjoe4082
2 жыл бұрын
This seems like the start of a great discussion. I am leaving a reply to see it unfold.
@ttmylink
2 жыл бұрын
The measurement problem is more the fact that it change the state of the electron, so we don't know what it was before. It is like trying to gest the shape of a sculpture made of whiped cream blindfolded, just by touching it.
@VapidVulpes
Жыл бұрын
this is my favorite explanation of this concept I have ever found!
@kiljupullo
2 жыл бұрын
So are all other fundamental particles the same?
@hai.1820
2 жыл бұрын
First time I understood this topic. Thanks for explaining ELI5
@auntieroach
2 жыл бұрын
Ok Ngl I wasn't quite "getting" the robbery joke... Until I stuck around to the end. WELL worth it. And very well explained, definitely subscribing! I feel that you have increased my understanding of a fairly incomprehensible thing, and that's pretty cool!
@endroidmy3
2 жыл бұрын
Wave can have different wavelengths, amplitude,etc what is preventing electron wave to have different properties, why their wave are always the same everywhere?
@vansf3433
2 жыл бұрын
what you guys think to be wave is actually electric forces transmitted from electron to electron, and from cation to cation. In AC circuits, electrons only oscillating about 10 atoms away from their usual, randomly oscillating positions in the opposite direction to that of the electric field. In DC circuits electrons actually move from the negative terminal through the external cuircuit, and back to the positive terminal from which they haveen pulled away and driven to the negative terminal to create a voltage or a difference in the amount of accumulated electrons and cations at the two terminals to keep the strength of the electric field and its force in the circuit
@Noughtgate
2 жыл бұрын
These videos make me feel warm inside
@ritez86
Жыл бұрын
Best Explanation about wave particle duality period 👏👏👏
@xcoder1122
Жыл бұрын
5:50 The answer is: you can't see anything at all, you can only see how something interacts. You might look at your table and think, "Hey, I can see the table," right? No, you can't! You can only see how the particles that make up the table interact with light (photons). Some of the light that hits the table is reflected in your eyes, and that's how an image is formed on your retina. So all you saw was the table reflecting the light back. You did not see the table itself. The light coming from the table is not the table, but the light coming from the sun or some other light source. The table has changed that light by interaction, and that is what you see. Again, we don't see things, we see interactions of things. And every measurement is an interaction and it is local. If you measure a wave that extends across all of your room, and you do that with a detector that's at a specific location in you room, then the wave will only interact with the detector at just that one location, thus you only see an interaction at that specific location. So if you only see interactions and interactions are local, you can only "see" particles locally because what you think is the particle is actually the interaction of a particle. This does not mean that this particle was at this location before the interaction, but that you force its energy to concentrate at the location of the interaction by the interaction. The reason we think of particles as being in a particular place is because our world is full of particles, so all the particles around us are constantly interacting with other particles, so there is a constant punctual interaction that makes particles appear to be punctual.
@MWGrossmann
2 жыл бұрын
REALLY good video. Thanks. Love those drawings of the different particles just before the 10-minute mark.
@carelesswhisker4155
2 жыл бұрын
a friend of mine in physics explained it to me as "the particle behaves differently when observed because your eye / the camera has to absorb the particle in order to perceive it in the first place"
@FundamentallyExplained
2 жыл бұрын
Correct :D In order to observe something, you need to interact with it, which can influence the particle!
@carelesswhisker4155
2 жыл бұрын
@@FundamentallyExplained but then isn't it not a mystery anymore?
@FundamentallyExplained
2 жыл бұрын
Well, the weird thing remains *how* and *why* the wave function collapses. The classical analogy would be that of a guitar string. If you hit one it resonates in multiple sine waves with different frequencies. When you listen to it, this combination is what makes it sound like a guitar. However, in quantum mechanics (QM) you would not hear all the frequencies, you'd hear only one. We don't know why, we just know that this is how QM operated.
@intisol6528
2 жыл бұрын
Best video since Cosmos s01e01. (80’s). THANKS!
@shanejohns7901
2 жыл бұрын
The key to the 'identity of indiscernibles' is that they must be truly indiscernible. If they are in a different location in space-time, they're not indiscernible.
@88TMV88
2 жыл бұрын
Nice video, thank you for the explanation, I'm curious: how does a wave have weight ?
@FundamentallyExplained
2 жыл бұрын
The short answer is that you can think of the mass of a wave as an energy investment to make a wave in the first place, on top of the energy associated with its velocity (kinetic energy) and any form of potential energy. The more mathematical answer requires a bit more explanation, e.g. about the Higgs mechanism, than would be conscionable for a youtube comment, but enough for an entire video... All I am saying is: stay tuned for the next video :D (or the one after that, I have not decided yet on the order in which the videos will be published)!
@shawaizhaider3978
2 жыл бұрын
Amazing explaination
@SECONDQUEST
2 жыл бұрын
Early history channel, nat geo, and NOVA made me interested in particles. Ill never forget the time I learned about space deformation while in middle school. I did not have the language to express how I felt. I had watched a doc that talked about how Hubble had dinner with his partner and they basked in the knowledge that they were the only humans to understand the size of the universe as the total size was previously thought to be the size of the galaxy. What a beautiful and truly unique human experience.
@spacemonkey59
2 жыл бұрын
Richard Feynman once joked that the Universe might contain just one electron going forwards and backwards through time....
@Jaggerbush
Жыл бұрын
Thank you! This actually helped me A LOT. and I’ve been watching these type of videos for over a year now.
@m13253
2 жыл бұрын
These hand-drawn electrons are so cute! (P.S. Nice pun at the ending. You got me unprepared.)
@dottedrhino
Жыл бұрын
I was wondering that we get a wavefunction collapse because the field transfers energy to the screen, so that energy has to be realeased into the screen, and since energy is quantized locally, we get a WF collapse?
@NovaWarrior77
2 жыл бұрын
This channel is great and very berry underrated! What got me interested in particles was...I don't know, everyone kept telling me they were fundamental? Also, thank you for providing us with ta conclusion to the sketch
@ShauriePvs
Жыл бұрын
But in double slit experiment, after electron passing through slit, won't it interact with air molecules and get collapsed on the way itself?
@chrispbacon4519
2 жыл бұрын
Fantastic video Fundamentally Explained! I rarely find a video that substantially improves my understanding of physics, but this did! I've been interested in the "Measurement Problem" and this offers the best explanation, and the part about each fundamental particle having its own field is a real insight I haven't come across elsewhere. The lack of complex math (I'm a bit of a math phobic) but rather keeping to other means of explanation makes it very accessible. Looking forward to seeing more of your very helpful stuff and thanks.
@radixz11
2 жыл бұрын
That explanation was so clear, makes me wonder what else they’ll discover about all the particles🤯
@andrew6464
2 жыл бұрын
You mean waves can’t believe they lied to us not telling us particles are all just waves and particles don’t actually exist
@radixz11
2 жыл бұрын
@@andrew6464 didn’t he say only electrons are waves or am I wrong?
@seraphik
3 жыл бұрын
I'm very pleased that I could figure out all the particles in the standard model cartoon
@selfhelpilluminati
2 жыл бұрын
But, please do keep making videos like this. This is exactly what the rest of us need to enjoy education in between everything else in life that requires our attention.
@jeromesims
2 жыл бұрын
Sincere query: Is this considered a complete explanation of why all electrons are the same? "All electrons are the same because they are particle/waves in a field, a universal "pool", that attributes to them specific properties." I certainly have questions still like is a particle/wave then actually a collapsed "field" or is it a case of the field produces another, known as particle/waves? And if so what is it specifically about waves in a field that dictates their identical nature? Also it would be good to know a bit about these fields no? What do we know about them?
@katkatfarkat
2 жыл бұрын
this is the cutest explanation ever 😍 after this no scientist can be mad at electrons unexpected behavior anymore
@DJ_Force
2 жыл бұрын
I was expecting a lame simplistic explanation. I was happily proved wrong. Excellent job.
@MattMcIrvin
2 жыл бұрын
One could answer it in an operational manner: if all electrons were not the same, the Exclusion Principle would not apply to them, it would not be possible to build stable matter out of them and we would not be here to ask the question.
@Raphael3032
2 жыл бұрын
I can't believe that a KZitem video made me realize the concept of an electron itself
@ShogunOrta
2 жыл бұрын
At the very simplest, if you put a stick in the stream of running water it does disrupt the water somewhat. It feels like in some way, the measuring is the stick. How exactly do they measure the electrons though?
@robertgreen7593
2 жыл бұрын
It's some kind of conduction mechanic. I need to look into exactly how conduction works to figure it out. The act of measurement, the interaction, is acting like conduction. Rather than conducting through both slits, the measurement is acting like a conductor and 'directing' or 'allowing easy conduction' through one of the slits. Like I said I need to study up on what exactly is happening with conduction (through wires) to figure out what exactly is happening. Seems like there are two types of conduction in respect to electro-magnetism. There is the electro through conductors like copper wires and the magnetism going through a conducting vacuum. The waves are perpendicular to each other but conduct in different ways, seemingly carrying each other through the two different types of conductor
@manofmatter.yvezchannel
2 жыл бұрын
so what material did they use for the walls? is it a cardboard, mirror or what?
@apocalypticachmodio
2 жыл бұрын
Was the double slit experiment carried in a vacuum environment?
@JackStonexp
Жыл бұрын
You explained what electrons are in a great way without any fancy 3D modeling and instead you drew every slide. I admire that. I just had a thought that led me to question: Aren't then every other particle (gluons, muons, quarks, etc, indistinguishable from each other as well since they inhabit their own field as well with their own rules?
@FundamentallyExplained
Жыл бұрын
You are absolutely right :-D!
@ginoeelen6374
Жыл бұрын
Interesting. For me it raises the question: is there an explanation for how and why electron waves get stuck around an atom's nucleus?
@thoughtsfromthethirdcoast9329
2 жыл бұрын
Nice job. Clear presentation, funny. Some questions about the theory: in the pool analogy, what about the fact that we can see waves of all sorts of different periods and amplitudes in a pool (field) of pure water? Being a wave in a such a field is not enough to explain why all such waves are the same. Also: a theory (the Standard Theory) that posits 17 (!) fields extending throughout the universe and apparently each field being absolutely uniform in its properties (otherwise the particles related to a given field would presumably not all be identical) really strains my credulity. Reminds me of the intricate explanations for the orbits planets that they came up with before it was discovered that the planets orbit around the sun. Someday we will replace this theory, I bet.
@FundamentallyExplained
2 жыл бұрын
I agree with both of the points you make, though be it to different extends. Regarding the first one: I have added an explanation on it in the pinned comment, I hope that addendum helps. The second point you make is one I kinda agree with, in the sense that I also find the idea of N fields for N particles a bit... weird in a way. It is, however, the way the current best description we have (Quantum Field Theory) works and it works more than fine. Maybe these fields are just a theoretical construct, could be, or maybe the current formulation of particles is just wrong and needs to be replaced by another theory. At this point it is pure speculation, but I'm certainly interested to see where science is taking us 🙂
@brendansimons6811
2 жыл бұрын
I've been trying to grok the double slit experiment for a decade. This video has done the best job of explaining it to me yet. Thanks.
@PSG_Mobile
3 жыл бұрын
Very nice! I hope you continue working on this channel!
@markwrede8878
2 жыл бұрын
The infinity of integers is but a finite bottle of slopes. The number line is therefore not flat and curves inward toward measurement.
Пікірлер: 1 М.