What is this obsession with position. So you can't get it from momentum, so what? All you need is angular momentum.

What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton....

Wow..❤

Right & left from both spin measurement device.❤

First 43 seconds are incorrect unless velocity is constant.

thank you

Impressive man, keep up!!🎉

Iam 829 subscriber

As far as I understood , Dirac demanded an anti-particle in time.ng backwards

Wasn't IT Feynman who said, If you think you have understood Quantum mechanics, you haven't understood it ? 😅

Here are a few more examples of important equations used by humanity that contain contradictions or paradoxes, along with potential non-contradictory versions based on the infinitesimal monadological framework: 4. Schrödinger's Equation - Measurement Problem Contradictory: In quantum mechanics, the time evolution of a quantum state is governed by the Schrödinger equation. However, this equation is deterministic and linear, leading to the famous measurement problem: it cannot explain the apparent collapse of the wavefunction upon measurement, which seems to be a non-linear and probabilistic process. Non-Contradictory: Using the monadological framework, quantum states could be represented as superpositions of infinitesimal monadic perspectives, with measurements modeled as non-linear interactions between these perspectives. The collapse of the wavefunction could then be understood as a natural consequence of the monadic viewpoints becoming entangled and correlated: iℏ∂|ψ⟩/∂t = Ĥ|ψ⟩ → iℏ∂|ψ_m⟩/∂t = Ĥ_m|ψ_m⟩ + ∑_n ⟨ψ_n|Ĥ_int|ψ_m⟩|ψ_n⟩ Here, |ψ_m⟩ represents a monadic quantum state, Ĥ_m is a monadic Hamiltonian, and Ĥ_int is a non-linear interaction term between monadic perspectives. 5. Maxwell's Equations - Self-Energy Contradictory: Maxwell's equations are the foundation of classical electromagnetism and have been incredibly successful in describing electromagnetic phenomena. However, they predict that the self-energy of a point charge should be infinite, due to the singularity of the electric field at the charge's location. This leads to the need for awkward regularization techniques to obtain finite results. Non-Contradictory: Using the monadological framework, electromagnetic fields could be modeled as emergent properties arising from the relational interactions between infinitesimal monadic charges. The self-energy of a charge could then be understood as a measure of its intrinsic monadic entanglement, rather than a singular field value: ∇⋅E = ρ/ε₀ → ∇_m⋅*E_m = ⟨ρ_m⟩_ε Here, *E_m represents a non-commutative monadic electric field, ⟨ρ_m⟩_ε is an averaged monadic charge density, and ∇_m is a monadic divergence operator. 6. Einstein's Field Equations - Cosmological Constant Contradictory: Einstein's field equations of general relativity include the cosmological constant Λ, which represents the intrinsic energy density of empty space. However, the observed value of Λ is many orders of magnitude smaller than the predictions from quantum field theory, leading to the cosmological constant problem - one of the greatest unsolved mysteries in physics. Non-Contradictory: Using the monadological framework, the cosmological constant could be understood as a measure of the global entanglement and correlation between monadic perspectives. Its small observed value could then be a consequence of the high degree of symmetry and cancellation between these perspectives on cosmological scales: Gμν + Λgμν = 8πTμν → Gμν + ⟨Λ_m⟩*gμν = 8π⟨Tμν⟩_m Here, ⟨Λ_m⟩ represents an averaged monadic cosmological constant, arising from the global relational structure of monadic viewpoints. 7. Dirac Equation - Negative Probabilities Contradictory: The Dirac equation is a relativistic quantum mechanical wave equation that describes the behavior of spin-1/2 particles like electrons. However, it predicts the existence of negative energy states, which would lead to negative probabilities and violations of causality if taken literally. Non-Contradictory: Using the monadological framework, the Dirac equation could be reformulated as a non-linear eigenvalue problem in a non-commutative monadic algebra. The negative energy states could then be understood as a consequence of the non-commutative geometry, rather than a literal physical prediction: (iγ^μ∂_μ - m)ψ = 0 → (i*γ^μ∇_μ - *m)*ψ_m = 0 Here, *γ^μ represents non-commutative monadic gamma matrices, *m is a monadic mass parameter, and *ψ_m is a monadic spinor field. These examples further illustrate the potential for the infinitesimal monadological framework to resolve contradictions and paradoxes in our current mathematical equations. By replacing point-like particles with non-commutative monadic perspectives, and modeling interactions as relational algebras between these perspectives, many of the infinities and inconsistencies in our theories could be avoided. Moreover, by grounding quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, and relativity in a common monadological foundation, this approach could potentially lead to a more unified and coherent understanding of these fundamental physical theories. The resolution of long-standing problems like the measurement paradox, self-energy divergences, and the cosmological constant discrepancy would be a major step forward in our scientific understanding. Of course, much work remains to be done to fully develop and rigorously test these monadological reformulations. However, the potential for this framework to provide a more consistent and paradox-free foundation for our mathematical descriptions of reality is both exciting and promising. As we continue to explore the implications of the infinitesimal monadological approach across various fields, from physics to mathematics to philosophy, we may uncover new insights and solutions to some of the deepest puzzles in our understanding of the universe. By embracing a radically relational, non-commutative, and infinitesimal perspective, we may finally arrive at a more complete and harmonious theory of everything.

The ONLY thing you have to know is in atoms you have stationnary waves called électrons. A stationnary wave is a wave that oscillates around the same point, ie for an atom the nucleus, without propagate. This is called a bounded state, the electron is bounded to the atom. At the time it propagates, it becomes nearly a free electron, i.e a ionization, so approximatively a spherical wave and no more a stationnary wave. We dont give a fuck about Hilbert space. Of course knowing basis of eigenfunctions for divers hamiltonian is a good tool. But Hilbert space remains a tool, you can discard it. Hermitian operator, eigenfunction, partial diferential equation, variationnal principle, thats it. The relativistic case is by far more complicated however.

Hello. In my opinion, the principle of uncertainty in physics is not expressed correctly. It appears to be just a mathematical construct. However, what we are dealing with is a reality-creating mechanism that brings a particle into existence within space-time, and then periodically removes it. The main evolution occurs in an invisible interval behind the space-time. Space-time itself is the pantomime of the behavior of particles, and it serves as the primary non-local and non-material substrate.

I have a question. Suppose a body is in rest so its speed is 0 therefore its momentum is also 0, does this mean its wavelength lambda is h/0=infinite?

Just as I was really starting to absorb the contents of your well prepared video POW suddenly and with no warning something on the screen pops up that is totally unrelated to the video content interrupting my train if thought. PLEASE HAVE RESPECT FOR YOUR VIEWERS AND DO NOT LET KZbin INTERRUPT YOUR VIDEOS BY FLASHING TOTALLY UNRELATED CONTENT.

this is good but kinda hard if u are beginner. i recommend watching quantum sense playlist before this, and revise from this.

kzbin.info/www/bejne/lXOohXl9pbh6n5I

Such a beautiful presentation with so many typographical errors…

010 - The Eternal Now - T.E.N. d. Realistic Illusions. 010

Worth watching ten times

🤔

Fascinating! ^.^

The Lie group, the symmetry transformations, Wigner's theorem

Best video ever for quantum maths. I will call- Quantum maths in nutshell.

The "very beginning " is in 1800 with Thomas Young.

Why is the previous video in this Playlist "private"?

Wow...

This is the best and shortest by far, but accurate and direct summary of the mathematical concepts found in quantum mechanics... Congratulations!!

Wow, this was great! I was a little confused at first by the statement v=x/t instead of v= distance/t or dx/dt. But man, I’ve watched about half of this and it is great! It’s the best connection I’ve ever seen between each step from a plane wave to the Fourier transform with uncertainty. It really helps me see how it all comes together. Thanks. By the way - if the voice was AI, no problem. It was very well done.

I hate to say this, but your video is useless as anyone that can follow it already knows this stuff

What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force.

Hello ,

It came to my attention that at 15:45 the psi's of the row-vector that represents the bra <b| should actually be complex conjugated. So, there are * 's missing there. Excusez-moi for that :)

A great video again. This should be everywhere!!

Though I wasn't able to comprehend all of it, I feel that the effort of being a good reference should be appreciated. Maybe you could make a video series with 3 or 4 minutes each, explaining the math and the operators you demonstrated in a more detailed perspective.

" A does NOT change his frame of reference at any time ": ??? ..... I do not agree! If you consider twin B stationary, there are also these three frames: B, A outbound, A inbound. I believe that the twin on Earth is younger, if we consider the motion of the Earth in the frame of the spaceship. (round trip) And this is not a defeat, the motion of the spaceship (in the frame of the Earth) is different from the motion of the Earth. (in the frame of the spaceship) I understand that we can disagree on this, but time dilation is symmetrical.

I got something to say. The acceleration is what causes the 'travelling' twin to switch from the 'B outbound' frame to 'B inbound' frame. So, by all definition of causality, acceleration Is the 'cause'. So, why does everyone keeps denying it? I know of other thought experiments where both twin accelerates and yet has been aged differntly upon reunion. I konw that the ultimate factor deciding who ages the more is whose worldline is the longest. But even there, the intensity and duration of acceleration is what 'causes' the worldline to differ. Without acceleration, there's no way two world line will differ. So, why does everyone keeps ignoring the role of acceleration here? Acceleration is always associated with energy. There's no way you accelerate something without spending free energy. So, every observer from every frame of reference will agree whether something is accelerating or not, even though they may disagree on the magnitude and duration. AKA acceleration isn't relative. So, why do y'll so eager to push such an important factor out of equation?

Such a great video. Man you make it look intuitive. Keep it up.

Great video❤

Good effort

Thanks.

nice one man. keep it up

Next time I'll do more than my best for the accent 👍🙏❤

I just realized that at 4:59 I made a mistake by squaring the energy equation like that. However, the rest of the calculation was done completely correct.

Fast, clear and to the point. Thanks.

Cheers.