Wave-Particle Duality and other Quantum Myths
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 05. 2024
- There are many misconceptions that have developed around quantum mechanics. I'm here to correct them with a discussion of wave functions, probability, and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
________________________________
VIDEO ANNOTATIONS/CARDS
What is a Quantum Field?!?
• What is a Quantum Fiel...
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle:
• The Uncertainty Princi...
What the HECK is a Photon?!
• What the HECK is a Pho...
How old is the Universe?
• How old is the Universe?
________________________________
RELATED CZcams VIDEOS
Looking Glass Universe on Wave-Particle Duality:
• The de Broglie Equatio...
Looking Glass Universe on Measurement:
• Comment response video...
PBS Space Time on Double-Slit Experiment:
• The Quantum Experiment...
________________________________
SUPPORT THE SCIENCE ASYLUM
Patreon:
/ scienceasylum
Advanced Theoretical Physics (eBook):
gumroad.com/l/ubSc
Merchandise:
shop.spreadshirt.com/scienceas...
________________________________
HUGE THANK YOU TO THESE PATRONS
** Einsteinium Level Crazy **
Daniel Bahr, Ilya Yashin, Drake Dragon (TMDrake), Morgan Williams, Rick Finn
** Plutonium Level Crazy **
Anamnesia,
Kevin MacLean
** Platinum Level Crazy **
Mikayla Eckel Cifrese, David Bronakowski, Robert J Zapolis, Nicholas Ursa, Evgeny Ivanov
________________________________
OTHER SOURCES
arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609163
________________________________
LINKS TO COMMENTS
Quantum Myths:
• What the HECK is a Pho...
• What Does An Atom REAL...
• What Does An Atom REAL...
• What the HECK is a Pho...
• What Does An Atom REAL...
• Understanding Quantum ...
• Why isn't the Universe...
• What Does An Atom REAL...
Doobly-Doo:
• How old is the Universe?
• How old is the Universe?
• How old is the Universe?
To everyone asking about the quantum eraser experiment, I promise Myth #3 is still a myth. *A conscious mind is still not required.* The more complicated the experiment, the harder it is to see this though. The quantum eraser experiment is made more complicated by using entangled particles. Even in the PBS Space Time video about it, he clarifies this at 1 min 51 sec: czcams.com/video/8ORLN_KwAgs/video.htmlm51s
So an observation in the language of physics means something quite different than the word observation does in ordinary English.
I'm guessing an observation on the atomic level is any interaction between particles, or maybe just certain kinds interactions.
Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding entirely.
help8help, exactly right. It means something different specifically in quantum physics: interactions and only certain kinds.
Does that mean if there was some way to observe without any interaction, we would not see the effects (i.e., it is the interaction that causes the effects, not the observation)?
Keep these videos coming please!!!! How about one on quantum chromodynamics?
Jonathan Hines, there is no way to observe without an interaction. It's not possible.
for someone who's "a little crazy", this is the sanest video on quantum mechanics i've seen!
yeah he outdid SO many science communicators with this. especially because he tackles the role of the observer that caused so much science woo.
a long time ago someone once was confused about schrodinger's cat and said how can a cat be in a superposition of alive and dead. i said it can't, a cat is an observer. at least it made them think about it ... (although it's the radiation detector that is probably the actual observer).
@@MusicalRaichu He only explains the basic DS experiment.
The erase of information or the delayed choice experiment gave wave patterns too.
@@MusicalRaichu Yes, it raises all sorts of questions. None of them comfortable. The people commenting here that this video comes as a big relief to them really need to find out more about quantum mechanics and the experimentation behind it.
Exactly. I finally understood at least something 😀
Considering my viewing habits and how many science channels I've been subscribed to for so long, it is absolutely dumbfounding how CZcams only just recently recommended this channel to me and you've been doing this for years.
This channel is gold. Thanks.
The YT algorithm kind of hates me. After 5 years, I've gotten used to it.
I had the same recommendation problem, and now I’m having the problem of keeping this channel in my feed & notifications.
It feels like the algorithm only wants to push the easy to admin and create: “generic science news, narrated by Google’s bot voice” content.
People who already watch PBS Spacetime and Kurzgezagt and Isaac Arthur might see this channel and assume that it's entry level stuff and that they won't learn anything new from it, but this channel is truly awesome. Yes, this video is specifically about myths and dispelling them, but to a large extent, every video on this channel has a mythbusting element to it. I learn so much from this channel. The format is so concise, he fits a lot of information into short videos and with the clones serving as interlocutors, the information is made very digestible. Many other youtube videos would take a lot longer to deliver the same information content and it wouldn't be divided into bite-sized chunks. This is really great. Thanks for doing what you do Nick.
Yeah, there's something about his style that makes these videos look old. The first few videos I saw gave me an impression that these videos are from 2012 circa and he no longer makes videos, I don't why.
You really shouldn't mix PBS Spacetime and The Science Asylum with Kurzgezagt an Isaac Arthur. The former are much more rigorous and accurate, and the last one is just Elmer Fudd daydreaming about space.
@@acruzp He's not Elmer Fudd, but his content isn't exactly science. It's science themed fantasy. He puts some effort into it, but it's still fantasy.
I find all those channels too much of fantasies or jargons. Just watch a video on twin paradox on this channel and other. Other channels would fuck your brain. I feel they just want to talk more about parallel universe and alternate reality than this universe
Exactly
It’s wonderful to know that I wasn’t crazy for coming to the same conclusion about these myths as shown in this video. However, it’s awful to realize that I received a Bachelor in Physics learning these myths with no explanation. Thank you for making this video!
I'm glad I could make you feel better about your conclusions 👍
What about Delayed-choice quantum eraser - Wikipedia
This video is so awesome, that Schrödinger both likes it and likes it.
Didn't Schrodinger die in 1961 or is quantum mechanics keeping him alive in the space/time domain???
@@kansasthunderman1 he is both alive and dead until you look in the coffin
@@kansasthunderman1 neither of that, he is kind of alive and dead at the same time
@@markmd9 so he is undead ...
@@uwose He is both dead and undead at the same time
Please do more of these! Clearing up the misconceptions is definitely your greatest contribution to public science education. You clear up in ten minutes what took me years of reading and research to get wrong! Thanks!
Its not that a wave is a particle or a particle is a wave, you can not have something be two things at once that contradicts the laws of mathematical function. So if you assume a duality idea then your idea is not a function and thus nondeferentiable and noncontinous therefore calculus falls apart. Thats why we have to see it as a particle or a wave so that calculus can be useful but not at the same time.
Are you a physicist ?
THANK YOU!!!
This is one of the most frustrating concepts I still hear being taught today. I wish more ppl would just understand this. It’s all waves. “Particles” are just measurements of waves at certain positions we choose to measure. That’s literally the definition of quanta.
no one says music has "wave-particle" duality when you take a sample at an specific interval and quantize the wave...
@@monad_tcp Quantizing in music means programmatically fitting the sample to the beat. In quantum physics a quanta is just an amount that is measured. So a particle, which is a quanta, is just the energy of a wave measured at a specific point.
Though in this case they are waves of probability right? Apologies I haven’t rewatched the video to re-familiarise myself.
@@monad_tcp Sound doesn't travel in space. That is interesting. The energy of it does seem to travel in space but cannot translate into sound output before there is f ex oxygen in the room or atmosphere or any volumous locality. I have seen the theory of phonons. First I thought it was comical but I am much less skeptical to it now. But then you have some different descriptions of what phonons can be. Note that there are different main categories for the various types of waves. Not to be forgotten.
@@KibyNykraft Phonons definitely are a thing, as waves carry energy. But sound is usually mediated by a medium.
What's the medium that mediate photons ? The Higgs field ? that mediates all particles in the standard model, doesn't it?
The parallels between quantum physics and audio are amazing.
Thank you Nick for clearing up those myths. Most channels that make videos on the double slit experiment or talk about Quantum Mechanics really push the "mystic" aspects or explain it wrong. You do a great job of explaining the actual true facts about science.
Yeah, naming no names DR QUANTUM from WHAT THE BLEEP / DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE!
To be honest, this video actually really helped clear a lot up for me. Thanks for making this!
You're welcome, Willie :-)
these videos always make me more confused than I ever was about these subjects.
@@ScienceAsylum Make a video(part2) about delayed choice experiment . Cause this videos incomplete.
It is wrong.
@@obvioustruth what is wrong?
Yes! Thank you, Nick. I'm tired of hearing quantum mechanics being used to justify magical thinking.
Biocentrism believers need to see this. Not that they'll accept it.
Fair enough. But if magical thinking is the symptom of interest, then religion, not science, is the disease to be treated first.
just saying, the word "magic" must be defined if we are going to communicate this. quantum mechanics explains a lot of what people call "magic." but magic can also infer pure BS. it just needs to be defined. such as harry potter vs experiments proving things like levitation, but on the MICROSCOPIC level.
Quantum mechanics is actually magical in some sense like entire reality.
Overzealous interest in both religion and science has the potential to destroy the dogma in each, and get you killed at the same time. 😜
I believe it is true that Nick and this channel are severely underrated... This video is a must-watch for those who seek clarity about quantum mechanics! I can't believe I watched this 5 years late... the clarity with which the myths are dispelled are so impressive, and not easy to find elsewhere!
I believe he talks certainties where only theories exist. This bugs me no end
Sir, I am so glade I found your channel. I very much appreciate your clear and direct interpretations. It has helped me clear up a lot of the misconceptions I have picked up elsewhere on other science CZcams channels. Keep up the good work!
Love the Weezy Waiter love!
Also, as a physics student at Cambridge, I really want to say your videos are amazing man. I'm so impressed at how well you are able to present this stuff for such a young target audience. You do so with more clarity than most people can explain it to older people. Even though I've studied most of this stuff already, every now and again I see something more clearly than I did before.
You deserve much more subscribers
True, maybe he should do something with other science channels to get some more attention, because the content is pretty solid. Of course the audience is limited by its own nature, but it can grow way more than what it currently is. Probably the only thing holding his channel back is the fact that he is not "big enough for the youtube algorithm to care". Once he breaks the slow beginning nothing can stop him.
I totally do agree with you
We can help his channel grow by sharing his videos!
That episode fried my mind. It took the exact opposite of what I was expecting with such a title, and made quantum physics even more interesting alltogether. Thank you !
Love your renegade style...but I'll have to watch again and again so as to revisit my present conception that electrons exhibit BOTH particle and wave characteristics. Great content! Thanks for all of your hard work and positive attitude.
I always thought that double slit experiment seemed sketch the way people were interpreting it. It also never made sense to me how observing an event could change the outcome, but knowing it's a particle interacting makes alot more sense
You do a great job in mopping up after other people's spilled misconceptions.
you always put some interesting perspective that you don't find in the rest of the science channels I watch, so good work crazy man.
It's refreshing to hear someone mention that observation is interraction, and how such ties in with Heisenberg.
Really excellent video!
Yes, it’s not that its been *observed* , it’s that it’s *interacted with something* and become entangled with it.
yeah this is one of the most comprehensive video's i have ever seen on the double slit experiment.
no one ever really focuses on what happens when the particle has an interaction before going trough the slit.
and most importantly i barely ever seen anyone remove the "role" of the observer that has made so much science woo
you sir deserve a hundred fold in subscribers and this can easily be used for high school.
zool201975 his is not comprehensive, it's full of errors!
for instance ?
zool201975 all he has done is denie that quantum weirdness exist.
zool201975 he hadn't really explained anything, just made adhack arguments.
For instance he says that observation adds Photons thus interfering with the experiment.
He can't know that because it's never been demonstrated. He can not think of a way in which we can get these results, so he assumes that we just haven't detected interference yet.
Awesome explanation! Nick has given beautiful information in this short yet powerful video! Keep it up Nick! I love your videos!
Thanks man, I was trying to make exactly this point on reddit, now I will just link to your video
You just saved me a weeks' worth of research and video editing.
"Notification Squad" checking in. No, seriously, awesome to see more from the Asylum! Jumped on this immediately. :D
I like this guys; he has the balls that other does not!
You earn, again, my like...fast fast!!!
...this guy; ...that others do not
I love your videos on quantum stuff. I do also feel sorry that you have to do so many of them for us. It can't be easy taking some of the toughest science around and making it into cute bite sized videos (you do it well though). I'd love to see some videos on the stuff that gets you really excited. The passion projects, the personal favorites.
I must jump to the conclusion... that you're right and you clarify a lot of things in a very straightforward way. I knew all this (not without some difficulty learning about them) but a lot of people don't and even Sean Caroll was manipulated recently into conceding to the "observer effect" in ways that leave too much room for wild speculation, so this kind of clarification is very much needed, thank you.
awesome video, i also had some of these misconceptions , thank you for helping me👍
2:50
Electron: What ‘ya gonna do about it, punk?
Me: Get back in your atom, you punk.
Thanks for another vid Nick! It's nice to get information past the experiments we've already seen, as well as nuggets like "the experimenter was unnecessary" :) (Interesting depth to the initial sound, btw)
That was the best way the double split experiment has been described to me thank you!! So fascinating and you really put everything In to perspective for me so now I have a better understanding of quantam particals always acting like waves, genius!!!
You're welcome :-)
One of the best physics channel on CZcams, keep it up
Very educational video! Thanks for showing me the errors of my way and making me stand corrected! 😀
THANK YOU... so many explanations of quantum mechanics fall into the traps you describe here, that a viewer can't help be confused by the outlandish claims, and these myths I think contribute to confusion and misunderstanding, and hurt the credibility of those explanations. You clearly state these misconceptions and it is a relief to find that quantum behavior isn't nearly as off the wall as it so often is made to sound.
You say "don't jump to conclusions" but you took a massive leap while asserting your materialistic and deterministic presuppositions about the role an observer plays in being. Thanks for the video though it was helpful!
From a philosophical point of view, I can understand your point. That is, in some sense he oversteps and claims the universe exists apart from observers which is itself an unscientific, unfalsifiable claim. That said, it is useful for scientists to assume this and conduct experiments as such. But strictly speaking, it is a metaphysical claim that can never be evidenced nor disproven. That said, his point that quantum mechanics functions as a mathematical theory apart from observers is now generally accepted by quantum physicists.
You have never disappointed me, every video you upload is entertaining, educational, and easy to understand. I don’t know how you did it but well done!
I came to these conclusions after a LOT of googling because there was so much contradicting information. Great summary!
Superb refutation of the new age quantum myths. Your best video yet.
ou have some excellent videos. very informative and you get to the point without getting out of context. thanks
I know you call yourself crazy, but you literally took all the crazy out of these myths.
(Subscribed by the way.)
Sometimes the crazy opinion is the sanest opinion.
@@ScienceAsylum Oh wow, thanks for replying! If you don't mind I'd love if you could answer a question for me?
I watched Eric Weinstein's podcast with Joe Rogan and came upon this tidbit:
czcams.com/video/X9JLij1obHY/video.html
It goes on until 50:22, in it Eric Weinstein states that there are "good" and "bad" (I know, vague) questions to ask about Quantum Physics. If you ask a *good* question, you get a deterministic answer. If you ask a *bad* question, you get a probabilistic answer.
I wanted to know if what he says is accurate? From your explanation on how mirrors work it seems like his assertion is inaccurate.
1) From what I understand, Eric Weinstein isn't the most reputable physicist. I don't know many details, but he has a bad reputation.
2) I wouldn't really agree with what he said about quantum physics. _All_ answers to quantum mechanical questions are probabilistic answers. It's just that some probabilities are narrow enough to _appear_ deterministic.
3) There are no bad questions. All questions are good. It's the intention and expectations behind the question that could possibly be bad.
@@ScienceAsylum Thank you so much for this explanation! This really does clear things up for me, since after watching his appearance on JR's podcast the videos I watched and material I read seemed to contradict what he was saying and caused much confusion.
Hey Crazies, let's start a movement to get Nick installed as head of the Department Of Education! Time to reword some textbooks!
For future readers confused by this comment: in the United States, The People, via their government(s), used to provide education as a public service so that citizens would be qualified to participate in a democracy. There was a "Department of Education" tasked with seeing this policy through, not unlike the "Department of War For Profit, Bitches" and the "Department of Fuck Poor People" that you're probably familiar with.
@@bumpty9830 Aaah the good ol' passive agressive approches
Anime Aboutalib Do you have any content to add, or does it simply make you feel better to dismissively label uncomfortable ideas so you don't have to think more about them?
@@bumpty9830 Actually I was complimenting your statement.
Amine Aboutalib It's not clear that you were saying anything at all about my statement. To what "passive agressive approch" were you referring? Can you elaborate a little?
Very good, I admire you. Thank you for your very precise and appropriate explanations. A physics student right here is learning from you.
I don't know I just love this channel.. It is interesting, clearing concept. funny and also it gives positive vibes to me.. Thanks Nick..
Quantum particle: "Stop watching me"
Drake Dragon
But the video just told you that the particle doesn't care if you're watching, the particle cares if you shine a light on it.
S-senpai y-you noticed me! I may have spent too much time on 9gag
@@kk346592 The delayed choice experiment says otherwise.
It's not me, its my internet connection.
I always feel like somebody's watching me...
Just amazing, the content and the delivering style... 🤯
High quality explanation with true physical content. Thanks!!!
One of your best videos yet Nick! :)
Thanks! Had to be made.
Thanks for clearing up some misconceptions I've had! I've been binging on your videos and you're amazing at breaking things down for the layman .
One of your better video's. Nice Job.
I also went under these misconceptions before taking Quantum Physics! Very nice video and well explained
U hv been commended by many for your unique style of presentation, and many would continue to do so! 🤗.
If there is a Nobel prize for "Best explanation to Lunkheads" like me, u would get it hands down.
This has confused me for years, mainly because all the textbooks explained it horribly every single time.
And here in 7 minutes you clarified the whole thing
thankyou very much for your reply,,,,,,,,my detector is working fine but my recorder is on the blink I never know if it's working or not sometimes it records and sometimes it don't ,,,would I know if it is working by looking at the results ie a wave would say it was not recorded and my recorder was not working at that time and two lines would tell me it was working .thanks for your reply.
I am distressed by all the misconceptions about quantum mechanics. This video gave me solace...
A Quantum of Solace *plays James Bond theme
Ha!
Master Therion
Another great display of master punmanship! 😀
Therion-sama? You're here too? You're omnipresent 😂
Feynstein 100
Yeah, I only recently discovered this channel and I love it. Given all the science channels I'm subscribed to, I can't believe YT didn't recommend this sooner. What a hidden gem ^_^
+Master Therion Yeah this channel is crazy!! (Two can play that game :P)
Excellent, Nick Lucid. Keep It Up!
Finally a video on the subject that makes sense... Thankyou
You're welcome 😊
Finally, a popsci video that sets things straight about "particles", well done Nick!. QFT soon?
Hi Nick, brilliant as always. Where were the teachers like yourself when I was at school? Cheers.
We usually aren't allowed into the traditional school system.
I first learnt about quantum mechanics in the mid sixtees. It fascinated me and sent my mind into a crazy spin.. I must say that it is still spinning in confusion and fascination. I enjoyed ur vidio.... Because I was holding the same myths.
Thank you for this. Magnificent coverage.
You have no idea how much I love your channel, up there with 3blue1brown, Minutephysics, Vsauce and Mindyourdecisions.
Thanks! :-D
I can't know how long you've been around on the science side of youtube but I'd like to make sure you're not missing out on Scishow and the Camebridge University channels like Numberphile
whoeveriam0iam14222 Yes I also LOVE numberphile, mathematician James Grime is the best!
This is a great video, one of Nick's many good ones. Idea for video: if electrons are waves, how/why do they have mass? You covered this in "What the HECK is Mass" but very briefly.
Awesome video, super common misconceptions with an understandable answer
What I really love is the recap that you give at the end, so I don't finish the video like "....what exactly did I just learn?"
Great stuff as always!!! You deserve millions of subs. Keep up the good work!!!!
Kiss ass.; -)
Every time I think my mind can't be more blown, you put out another video!
Quality video. Glad I just found this channel.
Need more videos!
Thank you sir!
THANK YOUUU. I am so tired of how many people use the conscious observer idea to make it seem like humans are necessary for reality to exist.
Me too, said the baby kangaroo :-)
That’s a false straw man. Obviously an observer is not necessary. The real question is whether human observation has an effect on objects.
Agreed. And it is possible the very people who make that argument would scoff at those, then and now, who think we humans are the center of the universe.
Even WITH humans you can't prove that reality exists.
czcams.com/video/j3LGiZWhfVM/video.html
I want to give a hearty hooray! For how you treated the first two myths. I like the treatment of the third as well, but I'm not sure what Consciousness is so it's hard to tell whether it's important or not until there's the definition. A lot of biologists tell me there is no such thing as consciousness. Stuart Hameroff is famous for saying that as a anesthesiologist he must turn off consciousness during an operation and if you can turn it off it must be something. Rodger Penrose thinks consciousness comes from Qquantum Bbehavior. Who knows? But what you're really addressing is the misconceptions about the double slit in such experiments where people assume that by measurement a conscience agent has modified the behavior of the particles and there I wholeheartedly agree with your interpretation.
The only video on Quantum Mechanics that's ever made sense to me. Now I know why. Thanks!
Glad I could help 👍
One of the best science channels on youtube by far
Sorry to be that guy, but this video is missing the corollary to Myth #1: particles never _truly_ behave like objects, but also never truly behave like waves! The wavelike behavior of quantum particles is never quite the same as that of ordinary classical waves, and this is clearest for experiments with single particles.
I share some of the frustration with the concept of wave particle duality because it often hinders more than helps (and resulting confusions sometimes find their way even into high profile journals), but there's a core of truth to it, which should be understood in terms of the complementarity principle. Quantum particles share properties with both ordinary classical particles and ordinary classical waves, but such properties are never manifest in the same experiment. That's the core.
With regards to the second myth, I have a somewhat more serious contention. The language you used was necessarily vague, so I'm not super sure what you meant, but it should be emphasized that the idea of collapse has no neat dynamical solution as the picture of a photon "changing the wavefunction" of an electron implies. The state of the electron after the interaction is still a superposition of position states, and thus delocalized, but now it is entangled with the photon, so that more properly we should only speak of the electron+photon combined state. Once the state of the _photon_ is measured, hopefully by the physicist who set up the experiment, then we finally have a collapse. It happens when the observer learns something new about the system and updates the quantum state, his book-keeping device.
This is ok and doesn't imply in magical "mind over matter" quantum magic because the quantum state is not a physical object per se. It's a calculational tool that codifies the experimenter's knowledge of the system. Because it is a quantum system, it behaves in classically strange ways, but the state really is just a thinking tool. What can be surprising is that this is true modulo some trivial corrections even if you "interpret" quantum mechanics in some nonstandard way!
Is this something like:
The totality of existence cannot be computed?
LaPlace's Demon still couldn't predict the future due to uncertainty principle, right?
It Is ok to Say quantum object share properties of Classic wave and particle object but them aren't neither a wave neither object ?
Nah he couldn't predict the future because of hidden variables like the total amount of objects in the solar system, total number of stars in the galaxy, etc. The uncertainty principle is one of the many variables that has to be accounted for when predicted the future to an exact. If you want to predict the future of everything to be exact (which is impossible due to the amount of variables that are needed that we can't possibly get) you would have to know exactly how many particles are, where they are, and all of the energy content of each particle (by energy content I mean literally all the internal kinetic energy, the kinetic energy of the combined particles of larger objects and all of the potential energy). Which this somewhat has to do with the uncertainty principal but that would only matter once we have found every particle
Does it mean that when the photon hit the electron, the electron doesn't become more localized than before the interaction? Is it only localized after the photon be measured?
@@aalmadoestado1169 According to this science asylum video, the higher the frequency of the photon, the sharper is the wave of the electron. The animation seems to say that the peak intensity increase and bandwidth (spread of frequency) decrease with high energy photon.
The uncertainty principle should not be extended to vast macroscopic dynamic like stars and planet.
All it says is exactly what electrical engineers know about high frequency waves: if your wave is slow, you can't measure with high precision. Visible light is about 500 tera hertz. Compared to the computer clock of 5 ghz, you need to multiply by 100 to get 500 ghz, then multiply by 1000 to reach the frequency of green light.
Blue ray disk can store more than the original cd format that used infrared because blue light can be concentrated to a smaller spot. Uv would be better and x ray disk even more.
Higher frequency give better precision but timing, phase, becomes less precise. That is the electrical engineer way to intuitively clarify the obscur concept of uncertainty.
Dude, we need to get your subs up. You are consistently awesome!
I'm sometimes a bit annoyed by your character, but waw your content is always so accurate and to the point. I'm amazed every time I watch you. Thank you. I'm subscribing.
Great explanation. Thanks
Hey, the one question left hanging for me is this: when you say electrons are waves, does this mean each of them is a "wave", or that groups of them travel in waves? This is always hard for me to grasp, because all other examples of "waves" that I can relate to are waves of some substance, like air or water... the word wave always describes a behavior of those substances, caused by some disturbance of existing matter. So I don't know how to conceptualize a single quantum particle as a "wave"; i don't know what that means; I know their behavior might be described mathematically as a wave, but how to we grasp the idea that an individual piece of matter, a quantum "particle", is by itself a "wave"?
Thanks so much for this video, it has made me feel so much less insane when trying to grasp these concepts of quantum physics! It makes the descriptions sound less like the ravings of a lunatic, as they so often sound when they indulge in misstating these myths!
Very interesting explanations to clarify all the mess with duality in quantum mechanics
Thank you for the debunking :) too much confusion on that topic
Very good. You earned a sub.
LaserGuidedLoogie 6" or a footlong?
It's indeterminant...
LaserGuidedLoogie Mmm, inditerminents. *drools*
Many channels have tried to explain this to idiots like me, but this is the first time I've seen something as intuitive as this video.
Thank you for bringing sanity to this subject.
You got a new subscriber. Awesome content.
Welcome to the channel!
Very education and keep it up!!!👍
*educative
Oh! “They are always waves.” This helped a lot. Thanks!
If they are always waves then why does the interference pattern disappear when the observation equipment is in place at screen 1 and someone is measuring the system?
bitcoinmeetups In my opinion, the interference pattern occurs just when you put the equipment there to take measures and not the opposite.
@@rguimatorresBut that's the opposite of what actually happens.
bitcoinmeetups Sorry, not the interference pattern, just interference in the process.
@@rguimatorres You don't know what you're talking about.
Thank you. Very thought provoking.
Awesoooome video!!! Good job! And thank you!
You're welcome!
Can you make a video on what the "wave" of the particle is? What is wavering? When you have a AM radio wave that is hundreds of feet big, what does that mean? It can't be the photon traveling up and down since that would increase the distance traveled the bigger the wave, and I know that doesn't happen. It's a pattern the photons make? Also... how does light make destructive interference? What happens in the quantum level?
I'm hoping to do a whole series on electromagnetism.
God i love this show, eating dinner while watching right now! Not gonna lie, i was suprised by the first myth!
Thanks for clarifying the quantum world for me.
Good lord, first I thought I really knew about this topic, then the video came and I got extremely confused, THAN I watched it again to get the video itself 😂 Dont misunderstand me, your videos are always beyond excellent (it is so that they explain themselves to me), the slow mind was mine 😂
Loved the video!
so the reason the electron appear like two strands when you detect them and not as an interference pattern its because they interact with photons and become less wavey?
Correct. Still wavy, just less wavy.
+The Science Asylum interesting! so there is no paradox involved ?
There seem to be paradoxes like spooky action at a distance and even against the arrow of time, but the "observer effect" is a myth: there's just the "measurement problem".
Savvas Ch. you’re a weirdo too🙄😂😂🙈
"its always a wave..."..so what is the explanation for is particle like behavior??
The particle (or any object for that matter) is "actually" never a wave or a particle. The existence of the universe is all simply a constant transferring of information. We live in an information system -- like a virtual reality. So called "Quantum Magic" is physically impossible in a truly physical Universe. Therefore, the Universe isn't physical in nature.
Particle means extremely low waveness (but still wave). Waveness is another way to say there is uncertainty or spread in measured results.
Particle like behavior is a low-resolution approximation.
Point-like oscillation in its field. In other words its wave is not spread out much.
@@lawshorizon Yes, I heard this one physicist say: "I don't know what matter is made of but it is not made of matter".
Finally understood this duality and observer thingy much better! Gracias!
This is the more realistic explanation for double slit experiment, thank you.
Loved it
But this doesn't explain the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment where by photons were fired though the double slits and and all of them were measured however half of them were scrambled and the other half weren't; but only the ones that were scrambled still made the interference pattern while the ones that weren't didn't.
Can you please answer this question for me; because this has be vexing me sense i stated looking in to quantum mechanics. the fact that observing something is interacting with it do to photos having to bonce off the electrons makes sense, but when you add the quantum eraser experiment to the mix it just doesn't make sense to me.
Have I been lied to?
PLEASE HELP!
Jacque Coleman The Science Asylum is lying to you, same as Neil Degras Tyson. That's why they won't reply to your valid question.
Jacque Coleman
Excuse my ignorance, but this is the first time I hear of this experiment and I would appreciate yours elaborating on how it factually dismisses or contradicts Nick's statements.
Minarchist 412
Lol, he's lying because he did not respond to the question - yet? What kind of logic is that?
Kostas T.
It's the double slit experiment however using photons instead of electrons. when they fired the photons through the slit it would pass though a crystal that would split the photon into entangled pairs (one photon goes in two entangled ones come out). As you may know when particles are entangled what happens to one happens to the other (some what). After being entangled one photon would go to the wall and the other one would go to be measured. The experiment was set up so that the the photon that is to be measured would only be observed after its entangled partner hit the wall letting the researchers know which slit the photon went through. However the photons still acted like a particle even though they were only observed and measured after the entangled partner hit the wall.
They tried this experiment again however this time they scrambled half of the information so they wouldn't know what half of the photons were doing. the results showed that only the photons that were scrambled acted as a wave and showed and interference pattern while the ones that weren't didn't. all photons were measured and went through the same process but only the ones that were intentionally scrambled acted as waves while the ones that we still had information on didn't.
I don't know if i explained this well enough so here's a link for you
czcams.com/video/8ORLN_KwAgs/video.html
and the crystal they used us called an beta barium borate crystal
more here:czcams.com/video/2Ut0F4a9dQk/video.html
I know these aren't exactly scholarly sources but this is how I've been learning about this stuff for the past month and its not to different from the science asylum so eh.
I think perhaps you didn’t get the idea. There are no photons, there are only events and the noisy fields that cause them. How do you know there is just one photon going from one place to another when all you actually saw was a single event? But still, we would like an explanation, so we think to ourselves this is quantum FIELD theory, not quantum particle theory; with that in hand, we can think about how a field could cause events. BUT it can’t be a simple classical field, there has to be noise so that the avalanche events that happen in Avalanche PhotoDiodes happen randomly, according to some statistics, not one precisely every second. Think about it, and perhaps also see my channel, where my first video tells an approximately similar story. Not exactly, but similar. My video production is not remotely close to as funny or good as you’ve seen here, of course. There are gaps in the story, but I personally find it cleaner to invoke fields than to invoke photons, particles, objects as causes.
Another great explanatory video.
MY GOD THANK YOU!! deep breath in and out
You're welcome 🙂