Bathroom Quantum Fields and Vacuum Energy

[@PitchWheel]

A masterpiece in explaining and posing the same doubts I myself have

[@ddopson]

Your channel is the most under-appreciated thing on KZbin.

[@theosib]

I think you make a key point here. Detectors of quantum particles are essentially extremely high gain amplifiers. And when we make a measurement, what we're actually perceiving is not the quantum particle but the macroscopic effect it had on the detector. Of course something is lost in translation!

[@decreasing_entropy3003]

That's a really intuitive argument. This loss can be worked upon. I will think about it when I reach graduate school.

[@RenX3133]

One can never percieve or interact with the "actual" quantum particle, whether with our bodies or with instruments

[@awillingham]

@@RenX3133 that’s not true afaik though. You can influence the wave function of a particle without collapsing it. That’s how quantum computers work.

[@TheNebulon]

This is what I've been trying to say for a while, If we build a really high powered detector, it'll find what it's looking for and only what it's looking for, thus missing the actuality of what's there, and also disrupting what's actually there

[@theosib]

@@TheNebulon That is another issue, although one that physicists are keenly aware of. The detector will only detect the kind of thing you designed it for.

[@etsequentia6765]

I really enjoyed this practical, hands-on guide on renovation, plumbing, electrical wiring and tiling. Really down to earth and well-presented even for the layman. Oh, and I also enjoyed that little bit about space-goblins. Introducing a little folklore and folktales enriches us and supports the message rather than diminishing it. Well done.

[@robbenfelix]

I have no idea how I ended up here but this video is a work of art.

[@cerebralm]

Your videos are the closest I ever feel like I get to understanding quantum mechanics. Love it!

[@jacobsullivan8512]

I've been enjoying the videos you produce and this one is particularly thought provoking. Thanks for taking the time to make these. Looking forward to everything you may put out in the future

[@CaiGwatkin]

What a wonderful story! Walked me thru quantum mechanics whilst keeping me guessing, thinking, engaged. Physics still needs solving, to do that we have to keep doubting our understandings.

[@christiannorf1680]

What helped me a lot when dealing with quantum weirdness during studying was to realize that "Is an electron a wave or a particle?" is the wrong question. It's often explained as they are both and what we observe depends on the circumstances. I found it to make much more sense when we say quantum objects are NEITHER. They are something completely different that has a set of properties that we attribute to waves and a set of properties we attribute to particles. Our brains always want to draw similarities to our macroscopic world. But this is a recipe for disaster with everything quantum. Same when it comes to spin

[@ypey1]

Obviously it is equivalent to say they are both or neither

[@FunkyDexter]

Let's see... Particles are governed by a wave equation... They diffract and interfere in the double slit... Are subject to the uncertainty principle, which is typical of wave phenomena and Fourier analysis... Have quantized properties around limiting potentials, like in atoms with spherical harmonics, again just like waves on a string... And are also subject to various types of anomalous scatterings, like Compton scattering, which are easily interpreted as wave-like exchanges of energy... BUT we detect them (measure) them as points. THAT is all the evidence for particle like behaviour. It seems particle physicists never played with a lens to burn ants when they were young. The fact that the lens focuses radiation in a single point does not mean the whole radiation is made of particles.

[@morskoyzmey]

@@FunkyDexter if you watch some videos about silicon droplets, including double slit experiment remake, you might look at particles at some new angle.

[@FunkyDexter]

@@morskoyzmey i know the silicon droplets very well. And I can tell you they are not proof of a particle like nature of photons and electrons. There is a deep, fundamental difference between the behaviour of light and our MEASUREMENT of that behaviour, which is what QM is all about. For one, the droplet system does not accurately represents which-way experiments, like when you measure which slit the photon went through in the DS experiment. What It does is offer a classical model of quantization on a 2D surface, but even that quantization is subject to a lot of constraints, like the need for an external force to bounce the droplet and the necessity of a closed, thin surface of liquid to represent potentials. Needless to say, these constraints don't translate very well to a model of the microscopic world, furthermore they don't actually tell us anything about the true nature of fundamental particles; if the photons and electrons are like a bouncing drops, what is that drop made of? What is it bouncing off of? It's very similar when quantization of electrons is presented as modes on vibrating guitar strings: yes, the string has limiting conditions which mimic potentials, and yes, it is represented mathematically as waves and harmonics (you can even represent photon spin and circular polarization!); all that does NOT imply the electron is a string wrapped around the nucleus, but only that the system can be described by similar mathematics. If you have seen the latest video in this channel, you should also know that the photoelectric effect, which is the whole historical reason we talk about quanta as particles, is completely understandable in terms of wave behaviour, because what IS quantized are not particles or waves but energy exchanges. I also suggest you look at his optical Fourier transform video, which makes you think whether the act of measurement itself is simply some kind of Fourier transform.

[@DKOILive]

​@@FunkyDexterBlack body radiation, photoelectric effect, atoms emission and absorption spectra, etc. Being a particle is not about being a ball of something, it is about being discrete.

[@Pidrittel]

One thing I learned during my physics degree is, that with those advanced theoretical physics models like QFT, it is very problematic to assign them visual or classical analogous concepts because what those theories are is a purely mathematical description of mathematical objects existing in a purely (and VERY well-defined) mathematical space. All left to do is to search for predictions that resemble natural or lab-measured phenomenons... While I too more than once had my doubts if those theories are applicable or even "real" at all, you also have to appreciate the fact that you simply cannot understand QFT based on simplifying visual content like this video. They also often make much more sense if they are derived in a well-defined mathematical context, though through the necessary high abstraction to do this, you get lost in maths really fast and loose the context of reality.. All in all, very interesting video again, though I for myself do conclude that I do not understand QFT well enough to be able to judge on such "apparent" contradictions. So while I do very much like the presentation style and humour of the video, it does not - at least for me - transport the intended message quite as well as your recent optics videos.... but that might as well be a problem of me or the topic and not the video ^^

[@HuygensOptics]

Thanks for your feedback. As hopefully is clear from the video description this video is not about giving serious explanations, but just about stimulating imagination and creative thinking. Fortunately, I do make serious videos as well :-).

[@LuisAldamiz]

Maths are logic, not reality. The map is not the real world either. This video is correct in that the wave must be only a collective phenomenon, whatever the exact explanation is: the duality wave-dot of particles must be wrong. Particles are dots (even Feynman said that), so the question is how is the wave formed? And the answer is not in the particle (dot) but in the collectivity of them, be it emergent phenomenon, pilot wave or whatever. Also, as you seem to know the maths so well, care to explain how does a photon carry the information to both repel and attract at the same time without carrying any charge: what makes a repelling photon different from an attracting one? Yes, I already know they are "virtual", I could not care less, I need that bit of explanation to keep adhering to quantum mechanics as science, because science is not (only or even mostly) about maths, it's about explaining reality.

[@DFPercush]

@@LuisAldamiz I think + or - relates to a complex conjugate in the wave function, a+bi vs. a-bi. Maybe that translates to the sign of the spin of the photon, although I'm not confident about that. I'm just trying to remember another video I saw where it explained the math behind electric charge. Wish I had bookmarked it. :/ But electric charge is the result of a U(1) symmetry, so maybe looking that up will help. There's also a (different) interesting video about EM radiation here, although it doesn't focus on individual photons but more the field as a whole: kzbin.info/www/bejne/q4vRiZuInN-ne8k

[@LuisAldamiz]

@@DFPercush - TY for the try but I'm still scratching my head.

[@LuisAldamiz]

@@DFPercush - To put it in another way: take the Feyman diagram (whih, as they say are "equations in disguise") for electron-electron repulsion and electron-proton attraction: they are identical in what regards to the operational part of the equation: the photon. Yet the other involved particles can't know anything about each other except via that identical photon. We could even make jokes about a quark, a quark and another quark go to a bar and meet an electron... I don't see anything in the issue of magnetism being relevant, this is about electric charge specifically. It's the anions who somehow "call" the electrons from the cations and establish a (very much photonic) electric current, how?

[@PixelSchnitzel]

Your videos push the outer boundaries of my understanding and I love every second of it. Great job on the bathroom too!

[@iestynne]

What a wonderful video. There is a fantastic flow to your writing. I ask myself questions like these all the time. As a non-expert, these kinds of speculations are especially fun! I don't have to be right or justify anything to anyone, I can just ponder whatever is most interesting to think about. Recently I tend to like Wolfram's graph model. Not because I think it's right, but because it's so utterly abstract that it kicks me out of the rut formed by my common intuitions and preconceptions, and helps me think a little more freely about possibilities that I would otherwise reject as "absurd". Like that 10^114 value, is that absurd? Why? Physics can be doing anything at all. Consider the sum-over-histories behaviour described by Feynman.... from a computational point of view it is absolutely absurd, but physics doesn't care about that perception. Maybe that implies, if we are in a simulation, that the substrate is much more interesting than the universe it is simulating. Just think how tiny the universe we could simulate would be, even if we converted the solar system or entire galaxy into computronium. And oh look it's 3am and I didn't even finish wiring that light switch...

[@TheHarmonicOscillator]

What a fascinating video! If I were your next door neighbor, you’d never get rid of me! But, I would have helped you with your bathroom project. 😊 No doubt about it. 10^^114 joules per cubic meter is an incredibly vast amount of energy and certainly a good reason to question QFT. A good scientist question’s everything. But, 10^^114 J/m^3 just might turn out to be the correct value. Time and again throughout history, science has taught us that we were thinking too small.

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

This is my second watch. The way you shed light on "mesaurement" is really interesting. I felt like this is the first time I understood it to some extent.

[@SeanRhoadesChristopher]

In my DIY plumbing jobs, I discovered plumbers must be perspicacious people. I suppose if it is a career, through training and experience it becomes automatic, but again, I am always humbled and impressed with the forethought needed to get plumbing jobs done right. Leonard Susskind worked as a plumber when pipes where made of Pb, so he likely suffers from high Pb exposure, yet he is the father of string theory.

[@sean_vikoren]

Re String Theory: That explains so much. Now I can blame Lead for the lost generation of Physicists.

[@leonlee8524]

@@sean_vikoren lolol

[@philipm3173]

@@sean_vikoren lmaoooo

[@Calicarver]

Wow. Really love how you break things down using "easy" language and use of every day macro phenomena. Great work!

[@Marb-e7n]

I have not formally studied physics but have always been interested. Somehow your video "clicked" with me and I seem to get your point. It almost seems we lay awake of the same things at night, only you have the scientific knowledge to actually explain your thoughts. When I tell people the field of quantum physics intrigues me, and they ask me "what is quantum physics?" I just say: "We can't even try to describe something bigger than us with languages and sciences we humans developed ourselves"

[@GoughCustom]

Great, now I 'know' even less about Quantum Physics than I did previously! Thanks for destructively interfering with my brain! 🤣

[@HuygensOptics]

Well, if it's any reassurance: the more we know, the less we can be certain of.

[@_general_error]

That's the path to understanding Quantum Physiscs, just keep getting more and more confused by it! As Feynman said: "Whoever thinks understands quantum mechanics, dpesn't understand quantum mechanics"

[@GoughCustom]

@@HuygensOptics It's a very interesting phenomena that a deeper understanding often leads to more questions! I think very few of us ever reach a level of knowledge about a subject where we truly have no more questions left... Thanks for helping me understand how little I truly 'know' about how the universe works 😂

[@alpers.2123]

Now I feel like quantum is a really sophisticated lie

[@hsjun7142]

I really enjoyed the video. Tiles are in perfect color, and aligned so well. Cement lines between tiles give great contrast, conserving the clean and neat overall feeling of the bathroom. I almost couldn't believe it's not done by a professional expert.

[@lukewaite9144]

What a lovely video to find in my recommended really well put together and explained and shone new light on an understanding of quantum mechanics for me thank you

[@turun_ambartanen]

5:15 absolute gold, I love the practical effect with the almost invisible thread! XD

[@humanistwriting5477]

One thing ive learned from my classes in quantum physics. Its a field that knows its operating hypothesis must be wrong. That it must be the wrong theory that somethings missing. There's so many ways to answer the possible, to address what must be missing but only so many ways to test them, and so it's described as it's observed, until something better, closer, is shown to be more accurate Yet there are those who don't pay attention in class and insist that theoretical quantum physics are bunk science, while failing to understand they've only learned the theoretical quantum physics

[@TheBoshy]

I mean it technically is bunk science. It's a discipline that knows something within it's discipline is not lining up with reality. Of course this applies to almost all disciplines. In a way all science is bunk science. As nobody who studies anything says that the their discipline has the whole thing figured out. So necessarily we are going forth everyday with assumptions that we know, are wrong.

[@GoblinMode3004]

Science is an unending march towards a greater understanding without ever truly reaching it.

[@richardaversa7128]

@Humanist Writing Would you mind providing a reason why the QM hypotheses must be wrong?

[@GoblinMode3004]

@@richardaversa7128 QM is based on assumptions- theories that are proved either correct or incorrect through experiment that we can use as rules. In this way it it is impossible to concretely say that what we understand about QM is the whole truth because there could always be something new that we have to fit into the puzzle somehow. The discrepancy between GR and QM, the issue of defining a measurement for the purposes of QM, and the interpretation of the math of QM are all still open topics in the field, in this way our understanding of the theory (and thus hypothesis) must be incorrect, we simply don't understand how yet. Also important to note is that QM is a model (The Standard Model), or simply a set of rules that help in solving a particular problem, and that other versions of the Standard Model exist to solve other theoretical problems such as String Theory and Supersymmetry. Science is a never-ending battle against your own notions and biases, as soon as you start taking things as immutable fact you've lost, there will always be more to understand.

[@richardaversa7128]

@@GoblinMode3004 Thanks, but you didn't answer the question. Traditional QM is based on a handful of specific axioms. Which do you find fault with? EDIT: I see now you're not the @Humanist Writing, who claimed that QM's assumptions are "wrong". My point is that is a misunderstanding of how scientific assumptions work.

[@DMVdiktril]

Sir, I am in awe of your intellect and the skill you have communicating your thought process!

[@davidjoelsen3399]

I have “fixed” a couple of bathrooms, but from now with your inspiration the task has changed. Thank you!

[@toteu00000]

Thank you for putting the time in making these videos, you have a very pleasent way of explaning things

[@LegendBegins]

Fantastic overview. Highly recommended for anyone wrestling with an intuitive picture of quantum effects.

[@graealex]

I can absolutely identify with "having to do myself". Nice bathroom btw.

[@Jacob_graber]

These videos are some of my favorites of all time. Wonderful.

[@undefinedlocation2408]

I like how you tell about having technical and also physical doubts you in your everyday life, also during the night - I thought I am the only having it. You makes me feel more calm now and I am also certain more guys have the same. Allways nice to hear such a reflections from someone elese. Big thumb up to your content.

[@CosmicVelocity3]

This video has some chapters that made me nod so hard, my neck hurts. Measurement, Probability and the transition from quantum to macro. I never had looked at it this way. There goes the night. Still: thank you😊

[@Strothy2]

I could listen to you explaining things for hours... well done work, greatly appreciated!

[@nathanthp]

Pilot wave theory, which was presented in the Veritasium video you mentioned, has been the most interesting explanation for interference that I have come across. Even if its not correct, thinking about quantum fields as a particle traveling along a wave helps visualize the concept in a more classical way.

[@wiretrees]

Thankyou for your skill of entertainment and the depth of your pondering. Will be wishing for no product failure where difficult replace in your remodeling.

[@timothyconover9805]

I really enjoyed the droll, sort of minimum-energy sense of joy in this discussion.

[@paulfrindle7144]

This for me is magical, because I have spent so much time thinking about this too. You also end it with an unanswered question. But the fact that you too have asked the questions, legitimises the many of us who have asked ourselves the same questions too :-)

[@xilw3r]

This is why I love KZbin. Thank you for this amazing video, Professor.

[@marcellovignoli8083]

Thanks for your clear interesting reasoning! The best theory on this I have seen is that of an old Phd that opened a Laser and Special optics company (more than 200 pp) and, when old, wrote a wonerful book in physics (certainly not everywhere right but able to explain many things) Of course the theory is "heretic" but valuable imo and in part support some of your reasoning also on "quasi vortex" particles. The book is: onlyspacetime (just click it) Is not the Spacetime of SR but zpe with his fancy energy that has no effect on our material world ( he says that these powerful wavelets have no angular momenum !?) but support the omnidirectional propagation of photons (wave-ph) that become particle-ph when interacting with matter of our reality. This process is, like entanglement, almost instantaneus. He says that M&M demonstrated the impossibility to measure a relative speed to the Maxwell Ether not its inexistance (assumed by Einstein, mathematically, to develop SR)

[@glenndecker6289]

It warms my heart to hear you use the term religion in the context of quantum mechanics comprehension. Many of the experiments supposedly demonstrating wave/ particle duality involve lasers attenuated to a degree that we "know" that we are dealing with individual quanta by virtue of applying E=hf. So since the interference pattern is invariant as the laser power is decreased, somehow this is evidence of wave/ particle duality. This strikes me as a classic begging the question fallacy - since E

[@douginorlando6260]

I love your intuition. It’s based on holding onto certain fundamentals and following where it leads … and comparing it to where the current reigning paradigm becomes a dubious extrapolation (and likely to be usurped someday).

[@jasperlawrence5361]

Thank you for giving expression so eloquently to all my doubts about how quantum phenomena are explained and described. I wish I knew more or understood more.

[@paulsammut6817]

I'm a not scientist nor a physicist, I have a basic school physics education from 55 years ago, which never covered atomic physics as it was called then. However, over the years, I have always been intrigued by the weirdness of the double slit results and the conclusion that followed from them, which formed the foundational explanation of the behaviour of light and quantum particles as understood now as quantum mechanics. I have watched many videos on just this topic and formulated my own hypotheses which can explain all the results very simply, including; the measurement observer problem, particle/wave duality, all without any weirdness, like waves and particles transmuting in to each other depending on if they are being observed or not. I always find your videos very interesting, mainly because your practical experimental observations and conclusions are very close to my own opion. Further I have used your video explanation of quantum behviour to test my hypotheses and found that I can explain all your results perfectly simply, using my hypotheses without any weirdness. Because you are a physicist, I would love to discuss this hypotheses with you and for you to try your best to break it. I don't think my hypotheses changes the maths around QM, however it could give physicist a new way to look at things and like all good hypotheses, it makes predictions about things we do not yet know, which people like yourself can do the experiments to confirm if the hypotheses to be true or not. Sorry for rambling on so long, thank you for your videos, very enjoyable!

[@ArrakisMusicOfficial]

This video is a masterpiece, thanks for taking the time to make it!

[@ex5080]

That was a delightful video to watch, thank you so much. I can feel my brain frothing with new questions about it all

[@ThomasAndersonbsf]

I have been working on setting up an experiment to test injection of energy into a mirror material for laser focusing, to overcome the deformities that come from making the mirrors and their material makeup by expanding their electron field potential thus smudging up the flaws making them smaller if not gone at all and getting an electron field over material that is conformal for nearly perfect reflection potential.

[@Zenodilodon]

Absolutely fantastic! I love that you venture out into the abstract when tackling questions and thoughts. I have similar thoughts about particles and waves with hopes to do my own tests. I never considered how they could exist as somewhat separated entities of the same field though.

[@davewesj]

Insightful and valuable for young scientists, that must now take it forward !

[@FredPauling]

This channel deserves many more subscribers and views!!

[@DanielSuguwa]

This is interesting! Never thought about that while building bathroom, but hey, idea's everywhere! Thanks for the video! 👍

[@rasherbilbo452]

No one on KZbin has me anticipating a new video as much as you do.

[@mceajc]

Both informative and thought provoking, with a wonderful through-line of storytelling. You have a gift! If someone were to ask me how to describe quantum fields and effects, I have a simple answer: I don't know, and I suspect nobody truly knows. But perhaps one day we will.

[@ZX81v2]

A well done video, wondered where you were going with this at beginning but it all came together well.

[@ascendantDreamweaver]

I find your questions discussions very thought provoking and I really enjoy your voice - it calms me a lot. Thanks :) About the question, I don't know much about quantum mechanics at all, but I thought that the wave function represented an "average" of all possible wave functions in the future, and doing a measurement represented "choosing" one certain future scenario - so maybe the average wave function of all possible waves for a time in the future wouldn't change if we measured some time in the future.

[@raresmircea]

Amazing pedagogical skill! The overall story, the editing & subtle humor are all top notch. The internet is the equivalent of a nuclear detonation for information (for good & bad), just imagine what is the impact of a channel like this in catalyzing the ideas & interest of young minds. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"-tomorrow’s conjuring of magic will have its roots in stuff like this, in the dissemination of information, careful explanation & equally important, transmission of passion. I wish I could’ve benefited as a kid from teachers with this level of eloquence, clarity, consideration for/ & insight into the minds in the audience.

[@sittingstill3578]

This is such a cool video I’m watching it again. I’ve discovered strong magnetic fields entering my apartment and I want to understand how one can use the science of magnetism and math to figure out what they are and estimate where they are located. Your explanations are always so good that I walk away understanding many new important principles.

[@Choose.Nurture.Not.Excess]

Man, your crossovers of math and geometry is heaven to me!

[@alcyonecrucis]

The meester of bathroom physics and philosophy !! Thanks sir !!

[@tolkienfan1972]

I was hoping you'd post soon. Am not disappointed! I have also had similar thoughts about QP, and the measurement problem. Physicists appear to assume that the math IS the physics, when we can only really test its predictions. That oil wave demo is very interesting. I hadn't seen it before. I wonder if there is a similar macroscopic demonstration of entanglement.

[@shipwreck9146]

1:41 I always feel like it's the other way around. Energy is a form of space. And then everything is made out of the same thing; space. And that's why everything can exist on space.

[@bielanski2493]

Jeroen, I could listen to you teach optics and wave mechanics for a long time before I got bored.

[@MuntantMango]

It appears that your bathroom is in fact a quantum system, considering how classically localized "shower thoughts" are able tunnel into your bedroom 😉. Great video, lots of food for thought!

[@HuygensOptics]

My bathroom is a classic for sure ;-)

[@gcewing]

The difficult part is preventing water from tunneling out of the pipes.

[@dontwanttousemyrealnametol6765]

you'd be a great asset on the xkcd forums...

[@carlbrenninkmeijer8925]

Many thanks for this awesome presentation. I always hope to understand things and like the particle- wave (droplet-liquid example) concept. I had a Swiss colleague who always exclaimed in the low level Tritium lab: "Why not try the simplest first?". I also thought about Huygens and Newton. A shame they could not see your Video.

[@harriehausenman8623]

What a wonderful video! Highly enjoyable 🤗 And welcome to the Pilot-Wave-Club 😉

[@victormultanen1981]

Congratulation, such a good job of bathroom renovation!

[@rhannan011]

Jeroen, another fantastic video. Like most, I hesitate to offer an 'ignorant' opinion in the face of inscrutable maths and jargon. I massively appreciate your perspective and initiative in discussing your issues with a model that requires such unbelievable energy from the void. I think such 'naive' opinions are valuable - challenging dogma is where innovation begins. As an aside, how often are you confused with the SVI/Huygens deconvolution software? It's how I discovered this wonderful place :)

[@HuygensOptics]

Thanks. I'm almost never confused with the company that produces the Huygens software, I guess we both are in completely different niches. By coincidence we are both in Hilversum but I've never visited them or even know where they are located.

[@DougMayhew-ds3ug]

These are the right questions to be asking, as all action seems to unfold from circular action and “spiral on a cone” type action, like musical scales as spiral and harmonic action. The quantum thing is really interference at different subatomic scales, almost like a fractal pattern, and at those scales generating an event that preserves the dynamics into the classical scale, would require a higher insight on coherence across scales, or something akin to this at least. I love.your clear explanations of the paradoxes and what blind spots in assumptions are likely behind them, this is real science, asking which assumptions might be misleading us. The more I learn about physics and the world and its various natural and human systems, the more I realize how everything ties back to harmonics, amplification, and dampening, based on circular or spiral action. It’s like the saying how all roads lead to Rome. All change comes back to circles and spirals or and manifolds of such action layered coherently within different scales in a kind of fractal or holographic form. It is also noteworthy how a magnitude of a higher, usually hidden form, projects it’s generated change down into lower magnitudes, the line of inquiry starting from Gauss’s complex domain and ending with Riemann and Einstein. The most profound mathematical discovery for me so far, beyond complex numbers and e, was that whenever a model contains infinite singularities, the escape stunt to return to linearity and the finite, is to discover the higher generating action, which is projecting them down into our lower dimensional observation plane, and render them finite by remapping the action containing the singularities, onto its inverted action, which makes the singularities finite again in their new “re-stretched” home. Kind of like stretching the paper or remapping the image onto other shapes which have the effect of undoing the knot, for lack of a precise language (I’m not a math person but I find it full of profound insights that tickle my brain cells when I finally figure out what the hell they are really talking about, lol) It’s similar to how exponential curves appear as straight lines, when one remaps them onto logarithmically-scaled vertical coordinates. (The vertical scale is compressed down in proportion to the exponential curve going off the top of the page otherwise) The infinity becomes finite in effect.

[@AndrewPolidori]

Everytime I watch one of your videos I learn something incredible. Thanks for that!

[@mph8759]

Another great video, thank you! I only wish you published more frequently

[@Natethesandman1]

Fantastic video! You did a really great job exploring these concepts. I have had a similar theory for a while now. However, in my theory, the particle and wave that it rides are not necessarily separate entities but perhaps just different planes of interaction of the same thing as you visualized toward the beginning of the video. I believe that that movement of waves inside a particle self generate attractive forces that hold the particle together, much like quarks chasing each other around. These waves hold each other in a potential “bowl”. Additionally, these waves radiate outward and interact with each other, causing other potential wells that either effectively pull a particle inwards like a tractor beam (sonic levitation) or push away depending on the wave interactions of the other particle in question. The wave interactions of all of these systems expand outward and cause other forces. In this view, all of the fundamental forces are built off the same waves, but appear and behave different on different scales. For example, the weak force of gravity could be caused by the instability of atoms themselves, causing an imbalance in the wave fronts, causing only larger attractive wave potentials radiating outwards. I would like to see the gravitational constant measured with masses of different temperatures to see the effect on strength. Also, perhaps dark matter/energy are the forces generated by the sum of wavefronts of entire galaxies, I am unsure. These are only starting points for those who know much more about this topic to explore. I am interested in knowing what you think of this.

[@Brandon-rc9vp]

As always, made my day to see another Huygens Optics vid!

[@rbh1151]

So fun and illuminating! Many thanks - yet again.

[@patrickfle9172]

I like this kind of thought experiments. My 5ct€ is, why introduce a separate field for every type of 'particle' rather than assigning a field to each fundamental property, with the local crosstalk or crossexcitation between the fields appearing to us like 'particles'

[@mrchangcooler]

I appreciate the jabs at quantum field theory. It really represents my own frustrations with the claims of the theory. It feels like scientists have too easily accepted the wild claims of it, just brushing it off as quantum weirdness because scientists in the past made the decision that quantum physics is counter intuitive and we shouldn't try to make sense of it. In doing this we've pushed all skepticism of the model aside because it seems to be able to predict things. Personally I don't see how quantum fields are any different than the last time we made up an all encompassing aether to explain how light travels without a medium. A field for each particle? Did we discover that each particle had a field? No, the model for what we see just works that way. That's not to say that the math doesn't work, which it does, but the circles upon circles in the earth centric model of the universe worked as well. Until we were able to find discrepancies. To me we're just in the stage of trying to find discrepancies in a made up model that seems to work.

[@coreC..]

reminds me of that topic: the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics..

[@xandermoyle]

I love your playfulness and imaginative vision, attempting to explain complexity. When I look at the slit experiment, I see where the light particle isn't, which is predictable based on the spacing between the slits and the slits size or shape. I suggest where the particle isn't is not a probability but can be determined given the distance of the slits and size remain constant. A sum of the area where the particle isn't can be made on the detector. If you add the variable of time to where the particle isn't and subtract the isn't from where the particle is, the particle's location is beginning to be encapsulated into an area on the detector. For certain the particle will be in an area where it isn't. I haven't heard any talk about the certainty of where the particle is not in the slit experiment.

[@sethlawson8544]

Bell's experiment rules out local realism so as comfortable as pilot waves are for our intuition and visualization, the Copenhagen interpretation is bae and we kind of just have to accept that you can't detect anything without putting something in its way and causing the collapse of the wave function.

[@HuygensOptics]

Bell's Theorem doesn't prove quantum mechanics. If the results of the experiments show one thing it is how difficult it is to make an experiment actually prove anything.

[@sethlawson8544]

@huygens optics I agree, in fact experiments can only disprove things. The fact that Bell experiments rule out local realism means we have to pick between interpretations that have nonlocal hidden variables like pilot wave theory and those that have no hidden variables and accept nonrealism. My point was that the latter is more popular. "Copenhagen interpretation" may have been a dated term for me to use. Scary to think there's an infinite number of theories that can address every bit of data if we accept an absurd and untestable premise. Because if any of them are true, we'll never know 🥲

[@firstaidsack]

The Everettian Interpretation (a.k.a. Many Worlds) is local and compatible with Bell's experiment, though.

[@IDoNotLikeHandlesOnYT]

@@sethlawson8544 Don't they keep thinking of new loopholes and having to do new experiments to rule them out? Though they've all had the same result… so far.

[@TrojanHell]

I love how the window in the bathroom is open in the oddly coloured shots at 5:20 after you've closed it

[@esven9263]

I don't know enough to even pretend to challenge the accepted values for vacuum energy but I can speak a bit about observation/measurement because I once asked some very similar questions to a professor of mine and their answer always stuck with me so this is my best attempt to paraphrase their response. An observation is any action which causes the wave function to collapse, so in a sense asking why an observation would cause wave function collapse isn't a valid question. If the wave function collapses then the interaction was by definition an observation. It's like asking why vehicles collide so often at car accidents. The question doesn't make any sense because vehicles colliding is what makes it a car accident. Actions which don't collapse the wave function can always be represented as transformations from one coordinate system to another. If you imagine the quantum state an an unknown vector then no combination of rotations, reflections, or translations will ever give you any information about what the original vector was. What all of those operators have in common is the ability to be represented as a change in coordinate systems. You could fold the vector from its infinite possible directions into a narrow beam or move it a million miles away it still wouldn't give you any information about its original angle or magnitude. It is interactions which cannot be modeled in that way that cause the wave function to collapse and we call those interactions observations because it is also only through those kinds of interactions that the quantum state can be observed.

[@markaeric1]

First off, this was a great video and the bathroom looks fantastic too! Given that my maths ability is weak, I generally can't delve too deeply into the nitty gritty of fancy theories, yet I've sometimes found explanations using these theories of even some common phenomenon lacking or even seemingly outright wrong (I'm looking at you, "3 polarizer paradox"). Though I won't be so arrogant as to be dismissive of things simply because I'm incapable of understanding them. One thing that's been that's been bouncing around in my head for a while regarding the "single photon" (that's in quotes because I'm no longer convinced there's a particle associated with it, and therefore there is no quantity - just a propagating wave with an associated energy) double slit experiment is that for EM waves with miniscule energy levels for their wavelength, there exists only enough energy to excite a small number of detectors, and that process of of excitement absorbs that energy sufficiently and quickly enough (don't know how) to "collapse the wave function". Furthermore, it might be possible that, given some number of detectors, some percentage of them below 100% are "ready" to be excited at a given point in time, making it more likely that some detectors will be excited than others when the incoming EM wave is at a point where it could possibly interact with them. To expand a little on my doubts about photons having a particle component, first off the process of strict photon emission (that is, the emitter emits more photons than it possibly absorbs from external sources) means that the particles have to come from somewhere, and in huge quantities, but where? Do electrons or protons etc carry them? I concede that such particles especially at what I would presume to be extremely small levels of energy would be hard to detect, but how reasonable does this even seem? Secondly, given that it is understood that EM radiation is created by the oscillation of electrons, I present this thought experiment: Say we have some magical tweezers which can grip one single electron without it interacting with it's electric field in any way. Lets also say those tweezers can vibrate that electron in some axis at any frequency and amplitude desired. This process will generate EM radiation at some frequency, but what effect does the amplitude have, and what is it's smallest level? What about it's largest? Do these differences have an affect on how many particles would be emitted?

[@HuygensOptics]

There is a lot of questions in your comment, but I see where you are going. In a future video, I will return to electromagnetic radiation and the interaction with matter with an experiment that (hopefully) either proves or disproves locality.

[@markaeric1]

@@HuygensOptics I look forward to all your videos! I have experiments in mind for both the "3 polarizer paradox", or rather, polarizers in general, as well as a detector causing wave collapse (though in the fluid domain, similar to that pilot wave demonstration). Just need to find where my free time is hiding!

[@dynapb]

@@markaeric1 Interesting points. When you say "(that is, the emitter emits more photons than it possibly absorbs from external sources)" I am not sure why you think that somehow the electrons can emit more photons than they absorb. They can also gain the energy needed to emit photons from an electric current as in many types of gas lasers. But of course an electron cannot absorb or emit an electron unless it is part of an atom where it has a energy well to work with. I feel that the photon is a dual positive-negative particle in an idea that de Broglie tried to put forward but was disliked or failed to be understood by the physics community back then.

[@manyirons]

This video is so well done. Thank you!

[@crazy8sdrums]

'The true cause of probability.' - That's a strong statement. Bold.

[@testboga5991]

10/10 for content, 20/10 for effort. 👍

[@hiddenbear5306]

Love this Man, you can learn such amount of knowledge from him, plus get a laugh sometimes.

[@pyropulseIXXI]

We actually can measure an electron's position and momentum to arbitrary precision, because the uncertainty principle explicitly only applies to standard deviations. You cannot apply it to a single 'particle' and have it make any sense. And this is the only way QM would even be verifiable, as a theory making predictions must be able to confirm its predictions via repeated measurement (otherwise, you cannot even verify if the prediction was accurate or valid). It goes like this: Prepare 100 quantum states such that each state is the same. Now measure each quantum state's position and momentum. You'll get definitive values for both. The uncertainty principle tells us that if we prepare our 100 quantum states such that we want a tight position measurement (tightly clustered around the position expectation value), then we will get that at the expense of our momentum measurements being dispersed or spread out around their expectation value. But each position and momentum measurement is arbitrarily precise; that is the key point. QM doesn't work otherwise. The uncertainty principle does NOT mean that if we measure position to high precision, then our momentum measurement of that quantum particle is now blown up or practically undetermined. No! We can measure both position and momentum to arbitrary precision! If this weren't so, then QM wouldn't be a testable theory, because we then wouldn't be able to confirm any measurements to verify the theory. For example, if we measured an electron to be at a precise location in space, then, by the faulty logic of misapply the uncertainty principle, the electron would now have a massive momentum in some random direction, and so it will not be in the measured position; thus, any repeated measurements of its position would fail, meaning the theory can never verify any of its predictions. In fact, we see the exact opposite; if we keep measuring an electron's position, we collapse the wave function to that position, and repeated measurements always show the electron at its measured location. Thus, if one does repeated measurements, since the collapsed wavefunction is now super localized, one can literally hold an electron in its measured location _indefinitely._ The expectation value of the momentum, in this case, will obviously be very close to *ZERO.* Hence, we can know an electron's position and momentum to arbitrary precision.... because the uncertainty principle only applies to *_standard deviations._* If it didn't, then by the faulty logic of applying it to a single particle (electron), then measuring an electron's position would collapse the wavefunction tightly to that localized position in space, and this would mean its momentum would literally blow up to 'near infinity,' thus meaning any subsequent measurements on this electron's position would yield no value, as the electron would be _long gone._ But this goes against the simple fact that since its wavefunction has collapsed to a super tight position, then a subsequent repeated measurement should yield near 100% (99.99999%) odds of the electron still being in that position. Does this make sense? Nearly all quantum mechanic textbooks I own go over this and clear up this massive misunderstanding people make, although I have seen a few 'low level' textbooks make this mistake, and also make the far more egregious mistake in claiming that the uncertainty principle is due to measurement requiring shooting a high frequency photon at the particle, thus disturbing it..... this error is the most egregious ------------ TL;DR ------------- Uncertainty principle cannot be applied to a single quantum particle; it only applies to *_standard deviations._*

[@davidmoore5846]

I haven't really worried about the vacuum energy issue, I know that supersymmetry predicts 0 vacuum energy so that's one explanation, that supersymmetry is broken "just a little bit". Renormalization also gives us the perspective that: ok, the large energy mostly comes from high energy physics. Can we really assert that we know what physics is going on at those energy scales way beyond what we've ever probed? We shouldn't, if we're good physicists! These are just my idle thoughts on it and I should really dive into it more deeply. On the regular quantum stuff, the lecture Quantum Mechanics In Your Face by Sidney Coleman is great. If you decide to have a nonlocal classical theory like the oil droplets bouncing on water, no one can stop you and you will get results consistent with reality. I'd say it's not a pretty thing, and it's much more beautiful to view things as quantum and local. I want to skim Thomas Banks' Quantum Mechanics: An Introduction because I believe it takes this point of view as well. So, if you have this theory of localized particles interacting with each other, OK, now Lorentz transform it and you find causality is all messed up! Someone like Stephen Wolfram would be quick to point out that nature does have a preferred reference frame (the CMB), but I think it's a boring way of looking at the world. It is much more satisfying to me to say that when we ask "what is really going on in QM?", we mean, "what is classically going on in QM?" Nothing, because it's quantum! I really like around 14:20 when you say "we sort of question the field and sometimes we get an answer", because that's 100% the way I look at quantum mechanics (although I would say "question the particle"). QM teaches us that we can't ask questions without actually asking them. The probability of detecting a particle P(x) is not P(x|particle detected at slit 1)+P(x|particle detected at slit 2) like it would be classically, because we can't nonchalantly add in those "givens" without actually making an observation. But Sidney Coleman's lecture also makes is clear: if you are curmudgeonly and tell me "that's bunk, it's simply an interference phenomenon caused by nonlocal pilot waves", then I can't do anything to prove you wrong. I try to be a good physicist, so I chock it up to a matter of phrasing :) Hope that wasn't too long! I want to make a video or set of notes on classical scattering by the end of this year, so I might send a message asking about some fun stuff :)

[@HuygensOptics]

Thanks for this great comment. It turns out I learn a lot of every video I make, if only by reading comments like this one.

[@4000578]

Thank you for this great lecture, I aspire to be as curious and inquisitive as you when I get there..

[@culpritdesign]

I was thinking that was a video to show how to remodel a bathroom and I got pretty excited. But the actual video was good too.

[@Asdayasman]

Absolute masterpiece. I personally have never believed in "dark matter" or "dark energy". They strike me as the luminiferous æther of the modern day... But I'm also a layperson who doesn't understand mathematical notation, shouts at the sun, and performs ritual sacrifice to please my cat (who is obviously God), so what do I know?

[@tychoides]

As an astronomer, I don't believe in dark matter or dark energy, but the best models of the universe only make sense if there is such things in the mix. Despite what science news says they are not confirmed independently, that why they are so puzzling. Or they are there (there are candidates), or we don't have the right theory to make sense of observations. Any case is interesting.

[@lostsince76]

So Strange to see my old neighborhood on KZbin since I moved to the other side of the world. Thanks for the upload!

[@HuygensOptics]

Where did you live Erwin?

[@dynapb]

@@HuygensOptics I think there is a bug in the browser version of KZbin where it does not add the "@Erwin Visser" when you reply to an original comment so Erwin will not see it. It does work when I do it on my phone using the KZbin app.

[@eccentricity23]

Thank you so much for making this video! I have been thinking very similarly but do not have the eloquence or time to express it like this.

[@AG-pm3tc]

Thank you, for yet another amazing video. Would love to hear more of your thoughts about pilot waves!

[@f.d.6667]

This morning, my wife sort of inquired (cautiously) whether it would be possible if I did something about the black fungus that popped up in our bathroom and that appeared to have become sentient recently (the thing is pretty similar to the gamma-radiation eating fungus that's been discovered under the molten Chernobyl reactor) ... this is the perfect video to illustrate the reason for me creatively procrastinating the fight with the fungus!

[@dibqip]

I have basically always thought that mass is just coherent wave patterns since studying the double slit experiment at school. Something like the cellular automata fliers I played with coding at around the same time. As I didn’t go on to do advanced physics beyond what I needed for electronics I have never really had this assumption challenged.

[@JKKnudsen]

I see you would prefer the Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory interpretation of QM. A comforting picture, but a pair of wave-equations does look a bit ugly mathematically( in my opinion). Also it does not get rid of vacuum energy, as something needs to keep the particles jittery. My personal view is don`t think about it, the Lagrangians of QFT represents over idealized situations. And stuff like discrepancy in vacuum energy, is a probably a result of emergent properties of multiparticle systems(i.e. not scale invariant). But someone needs to make some fancy new mathematical tools before it makes sense. Also nice job on the bathroom! Most high-level bathroom-build on youtube!

[@ThomasAndersonbsf]

on the double slit experiment I know they talk about observation but fail to point out that its an EM based observing tool like a CCD of a camera or some other detection device that has an oscillation of energy and I am guessing this process is over riding the orientation and rate of vibration of the particles the material the slits are made from so they become cohesive while not being "observed" these particles are more randomized much how the molecular structure of a material is vs when it is say magnetized/ Thus when "observed" they are basically forcing everything electromagnetically to become ordered and get the piled up particles vs the randomized unobserved slits getting a wave effect, (also the particles being absorbed by the material and emitted from exactly where they get absorbed to continue on their way vs their energy getting split up into two partial energy containing particles out the other side, is a possibility too.

[@Spacedog79]

This can all be explained using the classical physics concept of the ether, the medium through which electromagnetic waves propagate. My late mother was a physicist of the classical school and was a prominent dissident of quantum theory, she argued that the ether can be a compete explanation for observation without the need for any quantum effect. I had many fascinating discussions with her about this and to this day I am still convinced she was correct. Her website has since been lost on the internet but it is a great resource if you can find it on the archive websites. I can't post a link unfortunately as KZbin will delete the message but if you search for Caroline Thompson's Physics you may be able to find it in a link.

[@HuygensOptics]

Thanks for this info. One if the problems is how to interpret the results of experiment that are based on statistical processes, especially if you decide to disqualify part of the data set. I'm not contra QM but some aspects just do not make sense to me and seem to be the result of rigidly following specific math and principles.

[@Spacedog79]

@@HuygensOptics Indeed, my mother was a statistician by training and always said the problem with quantum physicists is that they can't do statistics.

[@dynapb]

I like your mom's thinking, the Medium is Everything!

[@georgemichelakis1202]

What a beautiful and unique kind of video!

[@DuelingGroks]

This video was so wonderfully made!

[@schmetterling4477]

Yes, also completely wrong. That's normal on KZbin, though. Almost everything you see about physics on KZbin is total nonsense. ;-)

[@petrosthegoober]

Why are your videos so GOOD you make OPTICS but you also make GOOD VIDEOS

[@ads2978]

Great video once again, love your work Good to see your little birds, love to see those budgies more aha

[@kobayashimaru8114]

I really liked the three dimensional particle-wave illustration