The ABSURDITY of Quantum Mechanics at LARGE SCALES!

[@tomaaron6187]

I’ve been a geophysicist for 45 years. I must thank you for re-instilling the sense of wonderment I felt in my younger days. I watch your presentations then find myself pondering it all in those quiet times of contemplation when hiking or cycling.

[@vinvic1578]

I love your emphasis on the Heseinberg uncertainty being a consequence of wave mechanics as opposed to an observer effect. As a physics student I can attest this misconception is everywhere in pop science ! Great video all around.

[@libtardiacitizen]

You mean "woowoo channels" like Destiny?

[@dialecticalmonist3405]

Saying something is "uncertain" is not an answer to any question. Saying something has a point origin at an event horizon, at least makes an attempt at a definitive answer. You might not like the "observer" explanation, but it is a more rigorous definition of reality. "Limitation of what we can know," vs "limitation of what we can measure" is just semantics. It is the same thing.

[@vinvic1578]

@@dialecticalmonist3405 what are you talking about ? its quite obvious you have no scientific training, I'm sorry, read up on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, Fourier transforms and an undergrad QM book (I recommend Griffiths) and I think these concepts will be much clearer. This has nothing to do with dialectics, its a mathematical property of wave packets.

[@rolandmeyer3729]

I see you are a materialist "scientist."

[@herrroin6867]

We don’t really know if it has an effect though

[@DanteGabriel-lx9bq]

I cannot express how good you are at explaining this stuff, you deserve so much more!

[@127-u4l]

exactly

[@divyanshipatel8570]

Yeah, Like I'm being 14 and understanding all of this says alot

[@dongshengdi773]

@@127-u4l This is proof that magic is real

[@markjapan4062]

JESUS BSAID SATAN WOULD APPEAR AS AN ANGEL AND DECIEVE MANY THESE ARE MUSLIMS THERE WAS NO GABRIEL ALLAH THE SUN GOD AKBAR THE MOON GOD...

[@omarwhaibi8395]

He actually is. Thank you for videos.

[@claudiorassouli1240]

Your animations about physics are some of the best anywhere. I love how you point to formulas and break them down. How long does it take you to make the animations? Do you do them yourself? Either way it is very impressive.

[@ArvinAsh]

Thanks. I don't make them myself. I just guide the animators. This ones in this video took about a month by people who know what they are doing.

[@flambambam]

@TheZone An average atom has a radius of 0.1 nanometers. A solid 1'x1'x1' volume would have something on the order of 10^23 atoms, each with their own wave functions that would have to be nearly perfectly in-phase which each other to produce a noticeable effect from our perspective. If you had a ball of 10^23 tangled rubber bands, how difficult would it be to lay out every single one in a neat grid?

[@siddharthshekhar909]

@@ArvinAsh Give my respects to the animators and the people involved in the storyboarding . They deserve an applause . 👏

[@markjapan4062]

WHY ARE THERE MILLIONS OF QURAN IN THE SEWERS IN MECCA IF IT IS HOLY IT IS NOT..

[@tubehepa]

@@markjapan4062 According to Muhammed Abdul, (paraphrasing): there are Muslims in the East (from Egypt?), but not Islaam, whereas there is Islaam in the West but not Muslims.

[@adels8205]

I agree with the other comment here, I cannot express how grateful I am for having discovered you. Really like your style of explaining complex problems.

[@magellantv]

Wow! This was amazing and incredibly well done 👏

[@kallesamuelsson8052]

After another 1000 explanation clips or so I just might start to grasp this subject. It's so fascinating but so confusing. Keep up the good work Arvin!

[@mariobrambilla4099]

The most excellent explanation I’ve ever seen on this subject. Congratulations Arvin! Keep going!

[@Trevesten]

This video should be in the top-5 videos one should start watching to get familiar with the quantum world. Thank you so much Arvin, you are doing an amazing job in educating us!

[@surajvkothari]

Content like this is a blessing! Such a unique take on quantum behaviour compared to lectures!

[@rwarren58]

Thanks for another great video! I love being able to understand the basics of Quantum Mechanics. Oh and great splash page. 😎

[@markgowers5713]

Excellent, the best explanation of Quantum Mechanics I have see on KZbin!

[@aryansingh7209]

I'm a big fan of you, Arvin! You made everything complex as hell simple as a piece of cake.

[@markjapan4062]

ALLAH THE SUN GOD LOLOLOLOL

[@aryansingh7209]

@@markjapan4062 ALLAH THE GAY LOLLILOLI

[@theshowmanuk]

Absolutely superb demonstration ! I am sure this will encourage students (young and old) to get into the maths and physics to get a greater understanding and appreciation of quantum mechanics.

[@jmcsquared18]

It should be noted, decoherence is often quoted as a solution to why we never see quantum behavior on macroscopic scales, but this isn't the full story. Decoherence is just a term used to describe what happens when a huge quantum system's many parts interact, both with each other and with their environment. Everything gets scrambled up, and the system's parts begin to behave according to classical probability rules instead of the Born rule. What this does model is the emergence of classical statistical mechanics. But there is no mechanism that decoherence provides that explains the quantum measurement problem. As a system begins to interact with its environment, the state of the system, at least in principle, remains stuck is a massive entangled superposition, all the way to the macroscopic level. Interactions by themselves do nothing, according to Schrödinger's equation, to force a system to leave a superposition of states. This only appears to happen (for some reason) once the system interacts with measurement devices. Therefore, it's still an interpretive question, and an unanswered one at that, to ask what the state of the system at large scales.

[@ArvinAsh]

Good. Thanks.

[@b43xoit]

Can it be explained as entanglement? I think this is something that Susskind is saying. The system under observation gets entangled with the particles of the measuring instrument.

[@jmcsquared18]

@@b43xoit You may be describing one of two things with the words "entanglement" and "Susskind." One is the idea of Everette's interpretation, which is that the universe splits in some sense. Different branches of the entangled wave function describes different outcomes of a measurement. The other thing you could be referring to is the ER = EPR conjecture from Susskind and Maldacena. So, I'd ask to clarify what specifically you're referencing here.

[@b43xoit]

@@jmcsquared18 I don't know about an entangled wave function having branches; that's farther along than I have studied to. My understanding is that for any given pair of particles, there is no entanglement, full entanglement, or partial entanglement, and these things can be inferred from measurements, at least partially. And when I refer to Leonard Susskind, I'm not referring to the conjecture you cite, necessarily. Just the material he states here on KZbin.

[@jmcsquared18]

@@b43xoit Then I suppose I'm not sure what specifically you're asking/claiming.

[@christiannissen5339]

Thanks Arvin, and what excellent job you do

[@JohnSmith-pd2dq]

Excellent .... take my hat off for you Arvin!!

[@poojarakshit1000]

Outstanding as usual.Your videos excite me like a little child wanting to learn the mysteries of the universe.I'd love to meet you in person & discuss physics.

[@AutisticThinker]

Thanks!

[@foreverraining1522]

This is a great video!

[@Name-js5uq]

You really deserve so much more subscribers, like at least a million more!

[@easytriops5951]

Great explanations! I have one further question I‘d like to pose: When everything is waves and therefore energy at a quantum level, how do things like feelings and perception occur from that? So how come energy and waves and quantum particles form complex larger stuff like humans and how come humans can see the world around them? How come interactions between quantum particles form images we can see? I‘m looking forward to some answers!

[@yourguard4]

I would say: The brain just represent the information to itself in this forms.

[@timjohnson979]

Very will done, Arvin! I'm reminded of George Gamow's Mr Tompkins series. He did a few short illustrative stories on quantum effects if we could see them such as "Quantum Billiards" and "Quantum Jungles".

[@ArvinAsh]

Indeed. It was an inspiration.

[@maitlandbowen5969]

What a marvellously clear capture of the information related to the question asked - provides guidance (frameworks) for ongoing and greater explanation in the area. Thank you. You are tops, so very across the material.

[@jorgearango6108]

Wow!!! Excellent Thank you for that explanation!🏆

[@Name-js5uq]

You explained that perfectly. I totally get it.thanks so very much!!

[@jmcampo9388]

Excellent presentation with utmost insight and clarity, Congratulations Arvin!

[@evdrivertk]

Thanks for the excellent presentation. Another analogy for the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle I like to use is detecting audio at different frequencies. You can easily detect the start and stop of a high-pitch noise, light the "high-hat" sound in dance music. Low-frequency tones (20-30Hz) are so spread out that it's far more difficult to tell where they start in time. In typical music, a bass thud is really a short high-pitch impulse followed by the long bass note to give the listener a better sense of when the "beat" starts. Keep up the great videos!

[@jayvaibhawverma]

Nice. That's a good analogy. But aren't the low frequency tones generally pressure waves? Or more correctly, sound vibrations are pressure waves. So, can we consider the Energy-time equation of the Heisenberg's Uncertainty to deduce the analogy you have given? Because I think that Position-momentum uncertainty will become vague for understanding this. What do you think?

[@sillyproofs]

That! Is why people have difficulty understanding the Quantum World. Because we view it in terms of own perspective of life. This video serves to bridge the gap between the micro and the macro! It well pioneers a very good way of approaching Quantum Mechanics!

[@alimmaqsa]

I love when u say :" right now".👍

[@Quantum-1157]

As always a great upload full of insights explained in a simple and interesting way! Thnx!

[@robotaholic]

This is creative and interesting and funny. Thank you for all that work!

[@MrFlemmingjensen]

Great video Mr. Ash , as always. :)

[@antoniocampos9721]

Absolutely fantastic. Thanks for this...I'm a Brazilian subscribed.

[@mmogaddict]

I am already living the Quantum Mechanical lifestyle, most of the time I know neither where I am nor where I am going.

[@robertryder1097]

Thank you - brilliant presentation of a fascinating subject!

[@swap7202]

4:24 THE ball is also interacting with the bat by which, the ball is being hit. Why ball is not passing through the bat's one side to the other? 5:15 Wave function extends till what distance? Are they extended in the entire Universe? 12:25 But light [rays or particles(may be photon) or electromagnetic wave] can go from glass this side(from where the fingerprints are visible, and because visible light can penetrate the glass, but not a human hand, might be it can go from this side(from where the fingerprints are visible) and travel till that person's hand and get reflected back to the eyes, isn't it like that?

[@michaelfoxbrass]

This is a brilliant teaching video for the layman’s introduction to this amazing field of research! Thank you for making it!

[@That_Freedom_Guy]

You are one of the first, that I know of, to show quantum weirdness at a human scale. I've been looking out for such videos. Thanks. ❤

[@captainzappbrannagan]

Love these vids on how to simplify and make the hard topics understandable and exciting!

[@davidsellon4580]

What a great, intuitive explanation of why we don't see quantum behavior at our macro level. How is it that after watching dozens of other videos from various creators about the quantum world, this is the first time I've understood the quantum/macro relationship?

[@cykkm]

Arvin, what a didactically amazing idea!!! I've never seen anything like this before, and such an animation is immensely instructive for looking at the unintuitive wave properties! A tiny nitpick, at 5:50, about the uncertainty principle (UP), it would have been better to say more unambiguously that the UP had been _estimated_ by Heisenberg and _derived_ a few years later; it's simply the Schwarz inequality between conjugate uncertainties in the position and momentum spaces, related by FT-but you know it, whom I'm talking to! I personally know that many physics enthusiasts who try to wrap their heads around QM believe the inequality has been _postulated_ axiomatically, like, for example, the Born rule has. Possibly, the persistent imprecise wording is due to the fact that Heisenberg didn't derive the formula later named after him, as the Stigler's law (formulated and named after Stigler by Merton, naturally) predicts. He only used an order of mag estimation. Too bad we use imprecise “principle,” “rule,” “postulate” etc. in physics. QM is sheer math, with its complex-valued operators and infinite-dimensional state spaces corresponding to nothing in Nature, that, IMO, it would be less confusing-assuming generously that QM _could be_ less confusing-to use “theorems” and “axioms,” as mathematicians do. “Heisenberg's theorem,” “Born's axiom;” no ambiguity :) Owning a 5-string bass guitar with an added low B2 string (~125 Hz), I often use it as an example: if the player slides his finger up or down a semitone, changing the length and thus resonant frequency on this slow-vibrating string, how much time does one need to recover a new note-i.e, the change in frequency? The answer is derived (with a few technical assumptions) with FT and the same bounding inequality on the time and frequency domain uncertainties: exactly 1/4 of the period. It's a warm-up math before the full UP derivation. :)

[@Name-js5uq]

I cannot wait until you reach one million subscribers. You deserve it 10 times over. I love your explanations so very much! Thank you very much Arvin. Don't worry it will happen very soon I hope. You are the best physics explanations on the entire you tube by far. Absolutely love you!!!❤❤❤

[@ArvinAsh]

So nice of you

[@damongulley9865]

Fantastic..loved it dude. Quantum is a tough subject & you pulled it off.

[@Parnell50]

This was a pretty good video, I'm utterly impressed

[@cycklist]

This is beautifully explained. Thank you.

[@babstaylor2441]

Thanks

[@6099rahul]

Finally. Thank you Arvinash!

[@mixerD1-]

Thoroughly enjoyed this video...thank you Arvin. An incoherent understanding is slightly more coherent due to it.

[@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546]

Bravo! Arvin is amazing.

[@elpuerco6059]

Decoherence perfectly describes my mental state 😂 Excellent explanation and video, as always, professor.

[@TheFos88]

That's what I said when he mentioned frustrated total internal reflection lol

[@DrSlipperyFist]

I'm 40, wish this content was available when I was 14. Great work, videos keep getting better - huge fan.

[@vencik_krpo]

Re the uncertainty principle: I think that's actually one of the least "weird" properties of "quantum world". Because it's simply an inherent property of all waves, not just the wave function. For example, you can observe a very similar thing with sound: you may have a nice tone, which is a sinusoid wave---so you can easily measure its frequency (wavelength) and that's what defines the pitch. But you can't locate a tone to a singular moment---only to an interval in time during which it sounded. On the other hand, a clap or a gunshot is easily pinned to a moment, but you can't really say what's its pitch; as it's just one sound pressure peak, there's no frequency to it... Same thing.

[@beniaminmarin1596]

I've been waiting for years for someone to make this video.

[@eugeniag37]

Excellent video, as usual!

[@channel4me434]

Thanks (again) Arvin for this video. I always wondered why the double slit experiment doesn't work for large objects, but is does for electrons, while electrons do also interfere with their surrounding. Of course an electron is much smaller than a tennis ball, but is has a charge and mass and even the smallest interaction should prevent an object (electron) to come in superposition. But now I understand that if an object is not a pure wave function because it exists of many waves that are not in sync, it can not be in superposition.

[@ArvinAsh]

An electron is a single wave, and so behaves like a single wave. A grain of sand is trillions of waves that interfere with each other. It no longer behaves like a wave overall.

[@SampathKumar-nx5xh]

You are wonderful in explaining and extremely knowledgeable man. Hats off !!!

[@stevensbox9625]

Dude, Seriously, you keep my retired engineer mind sharp & wanting more. Keep up the good work. God's speed.

[@RadicalCaveman]

Very well explained video! A minor factual nit-pick: you said a squash ball has almost 10^15 atoms. But 10^15 atoms of any substance is less than a microgram.

[@brucea9871]

A very interesting and informative video. But I would like to point out a minor error (on English usage not physics). At 9:35 you asked "So these illustrations beg the question, why don't we actually see this in our everyday experience?" That is a misusage of the phrase "beg the question". What that phrase means is to use an argument that assumes the truth of the very thing you are trying to prove. That is clearly not what you meant. You should have said "raise the question" instead of "beg the question".

[@lerk.]

I'm already confused at 3:16. Wouldn't the person entering the room and seeing the person in superposition already be a measurement?

[@hanssteyn9775]

Love listening to you. Thank you.

[@Hackanhacker]

i think that superposition thing is wrong we should take out the mesurment and observer from all explications.... this is the wrong way to see/explain this phenomenom im understanding more and more how quantum mechanics work and this explaination just keep to confuse me as much as when i didnt understand in short, its wrong ... other deeper but more precise explication help me visualize in my head whats going on, but this explaination never helped 2:40

[@Mtheory989]

This was the best explanation of the double slit experiment I have ever seen - which really helps drive home quantum phenomena

[@schmetterling4477]

Except that the double slit is not a quantum phenomenon. A quantum phenomenon either has Planck's constant in it somewhere or it requires multi-quantum correlations like entanglement. ;-)

[@Bhaumikpk]

Very nice presentation. Many thanks.

[@abhishek_sengupta]

Aaahaaa!! Loved it ❤️❤️

[@user-kq8rk1vd3u]

This episode came in the right time i was searching for superposition for weeks and quantum lifes thanks for the episode

[@mcwulf25]

Thanks. A clear explanation using some examples I haven't seen before.

[@harrybarrow6222]

Hmm… in the illustrated example of the aircraft seat, the new passenger only seems to determine whether the first seat is occupied. Surely, there is now still uncertainty about the three remaining seats and their occupancy should still be superposed?

[@niloymondal]

Great Video. A video on everyday life implications of Delayed Choice Experiment would be super cool.

[@aryanayushman3090]

Arvin can you make a video on how our senses connected to the physical world ? How accurately we perceive the world?

[@b43xoit]

That can be a fascinating subject, I am so sure. For example, dogs can be used to sniff molecules that no technology has to date.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

That is largely unknown, but there are some very interesting areas of discovery. For example, grid cells.

[@anishashee8511]

Excellent work. You always make that much awesome video and explain it very intuitively. 👏🔥

[@saeeddargahi4750]

Very glad that I found this channel,really great topics👍👍

[@art3nem]

Thank you Arvin, I love the way you explain very complex mechanisms in a very simple way. But I can’t fully agree in your confidence to say that certain quantum phenomena are not applicable in terms of „magic“. See, I stumbled upon your videos on my search for answers to very real phenomena I encountered and still encounter in my life. In my search I also experimented with qigong, and other spiritual or consciousness practices including breath work and visualization techniques and found out in my experience that our mind is capable of much more and we can influence matter as crazy as it sounds. It’s like muscle that just needs the proper training. What I can say is that through some practices, you start to use areas of your brain as well as body in a coherent way that will unlock certain let’s say sensitivity in your perception which will lead your conscious part of your brain or ego to be able to use and manipulate certain aspects or laws of Newtonian physics. Seeing blindfolded also through solid walls for example is taught in Indonesia as Merpati Puthi to almost the whole population. Through continuous breathwork and meditation you Rewire the visual cortex of your brain to use another information channel beyond your 5 physical senses or the signals of your eyeballs. I encourage everyone to try it out for themselves and scientifically try to find out how it works. I just can tell that it works and that the western science and physics avoid to dive into the topic which is ridiculous. Interesting fact, children learn this ability in a matter of minutes, since they don’t have learned barriers in their mind or trained worldview. My 7 year old son was able to see completely blindfolded right after I told him to look for the “information” in his mind. And before commenting this, just use KZbin and research a little or even better if you live near Utah go to MP USA or watch their videos and the reviews of their students. Thank you Arvin again for your informative videos, I love them! Would love to see a video from you trying to explain just the ability of seeing blindfolded after you learned some of those methods from MP USA. Looking forward for that! 😊

[@nmarbletoe8210]

cool. we have a lot still to learn :)

[@bharathcarrom2159]

Is it correct to say the object existed in multiple places before we measured it? Is it not just we don't know about its position before we measured it?

[@Rampart.X]

Yes. But those positions were not simultaneous. Superposition is unproven BS.

[@schmetterling4477]

No, it's not. The first problem is that there are no objects in quantum mechanics to begin with. There are only quanta of energy, momentum, angular momentum and charges. "Objects" only exist as an emergent effect of many quantum interactions.

[@hanssax3810]

Dear Mr. Ash, First of all THANKS!! At 3:55 min in this video, you state "A measurement is any kind of interaction and is a physical or mechanical process that does not require a measurer (a human) of any kind. " I have not understood anywhere (such as in video's of others) that interference of the measurement equipment has been researched and discounted in the experiments as not being the reason that an objects changes from a state of superposition into fixing in one state. These equipment's must have their own waves (which I understand to be frequencies, such as in light or sound, in the later our sensor - the human ear - is very limited in comparison with animals. I can't see the waves / frequencies of light but my brain is capable to organise the same into pictures. Other question; (at the danger of not having understood your explanations), what is the interest of a wave changing into a single / fixed particle? The function of a wave in (also) quantum mechanics is clear to me, but what is the function of 'a fixed particle'? Your highly valued reaction is appreciated in advance! Warmest regards from Holland, Hans

[@juzoli]

In the example where we shoot waves at the wall, and a ball comes back, it would be more accurate to show that another wave comes back, but from a specific point of the wall. It is never “not a wave”, the collapse of the wave function is just the beginning of another wave function.

[@ArvinAsh]

it would be a 3D localized wave, which would be like a fuzzy sphere. What we showed is pretty close imo.

[@jacobstrom]

Nice video! Maybe I am mistaken but it seems to me that there must be more than 1e15 atoms in a squash ball of 25g. One mole of carbon (assuming the squash ball is mostly carbon) is about 12g and 6e23 atoms, so to me it should be somewhere around 1e24 rather than 1e15. But perhaps I am missing something.

[@vishalmishra3046]

If Plank's constant (h = 6.626 x 10^-34) was larger, we would see Quantum effects in macro-scale objects.

[@brunofalconeguerra3428]

What a great video!! Congrats

[@dogasal]

scuh a beatiful explanation! Thank you

[@DownhillAllTheWay]

In the last month or so, I have seen quite a lot of videos on similar topics to this, of which three have been outstanding. Those three include this one.

[@brigittelars5564]

Very fine lectures there Arvin. Your (and other tutors') theme in quantum mechanics is "probability". Let's sort out this matter of "probability"... Is probability a natural function/phenomenon in the cosmos or its a function/method of human limited mind for getting information?

[@Stinger-rq4gy]

Excellent video thank you. Schools should show this, because its way easier to understand.

[@ScienceNerder]

Awesome explanation....

[@carlstanland5333]

I followed the link for the FTIR and I’m trying to understand it. How about a video on this phenomenon? Love your videos!

[@Snowman_44]

You've got a new subscriber. Amazing contents!

[@tomusic8887]

Thank you so much and beautifully done! Making the non intuitive and hard to believe awkwardness of quantum mechanics visible!!!! 👍👍👍😃

[@rohankulkarni100]

Excellent visualisation 😊

[@SpaceCakeism]

13:03 Even if we shrank ourselves to the quantum scale, we wouldn't be able to perceive quantum interactions; reason being that first of all, we'd have to reduce the amount of photo receptors in our eyes to 0, and second being that the wavelength of light would have to be too short for us to see with our eyes... (Or even survive, given that air molecules would be as large, if not larger than you; even if you magically didn't die from all the other things you'd be lacking, like your entire body's structure, considering how squished it'd have to be...) Of those two choices, I think it's fair to say that projecting quantum behavior to macroscopic scales is the safer (twice over) bet, however difficult that may be, at least the experimenter would survive. ultimately, I think it's better to continue on the general path we're already on, where we improve our detectors, and have them do the observing for us.

[@ArvinAsh]

Yep. It's not like ant man.

[@vitsirosh3722]

I heard of the example with polarized screen shades that explain quantum tunneling but never with the finger prints on the inside of a water glass. Interesting would like to know more

[@K1.0545]

As a student of physics I was addicted to your channel, especially quantum mechanics . I have a great curiosity from longtime to know about your qualification I mean in which field of physics you studied so that you motivated to make such amazing and elaborate explanations even though professors don't gave such explanations ;if you interested pls replay...

[@twilightbts7058]

Great! Perfect video for my doubt for why quantum mechanics doesn't apply for us. Thank you.

[@harmrobert2076]

Again about the double slit experiment, from about 1:03 to 1:18 In case of tennis balls (macro objects) most of them hit the first wall, but in every animation (not only yours) all quantum objects always go through the slits. That they don't hit that first wall, is either a wrong animation everywhere, or to me the most incredible feature of the quantum world. However, at about 9:00 you mention that "some might bounce of the wall, but most would go through the slits". Because the slits have to be very narrow (of the order of magnitude of the wavelength of the quantum object) to get an interference pattern, I would expect almost all would end up on the first wall and only a few make it through. Is the quantum world really that weird that simply having two narrow slits in a huge screen will make (almost) all quantum objects go through these slits instead of hitting the screen?

[@ArvinAsh]

Most will go through the slits if aimed there, but some will not.

[@harmrobert2076]

@@ArvinAsh Thank you for taking the time to answer, but it raises new questions. So, contrary to the animations (again, not only yours), they aim at one of the slits, not in the middle between them? Then it makes a bit more sense, that most get through, although it seems to me, the second slit also becomes less "relevant" that way. And then, do you really get an interference pattern on the wall, symmetrical in the middle between them, not shifted in the direction of the slit they aimed at? Maybe the slits are actually much closer together than the animations show? By the way, of course I really appreciate all the videos you make!

[@dr.satishsharma9794]

Excellent..... thanks 🙏.

[@seanspartan2023]

Thank you for another fascinating video! I 💗 your channel. Thank you for mentioning the subtle point that we are all subject to the laws of quantum mechanics. The same laws of physics are universal. It's just that quantum effects are too small for us to notice at our scale.

[@scribblescrabble3185]

9:15 This might be the first time I saw a good reproduction of the interference pattern in a two-slit-experiement.

[@rchatte100]

My question... is QM weirdness needed for the universe to be as it is? IE if sub atomic particles behaved like a classical object, say tennis ball, would the universe still work?

[@bobs182]

This is the first time I have understood why large objects don't act like quantum objects. I was stuck on the idea that it must be a perception problem of different scales of existence but your wave function interference cancelling each other makes sense.

[@kapoorh]

Isnt the first analogy wrong that you "see" four students sitting on four chairs beacuse "seeing" results in measuring?

[@Rampart.X]

Correct. Superposition is nonsense because you can't measure a particle being in two or more places at the same point in time.