Can particles really be in two places at once? Featuring

[@ArvinAsh]

Thanks so much for the collab on this video Sabine! Always a pleasure for me to participate in any discussion about the riveting world of QM.

[@roccobierman4985]

Arvin, you're an amazing person to have explain these things.

[@qwerty4324ify]

It is strange to me that people expect either quantum mechanics or relativity to be intuitive, when they are many orders of magnitude outside of our normal experience. It's not that you can't develop intuition with the math, but when someone throws a ball at you you expect it to follow a trajectory. I'm not sure most people will start to grasp the ideas until they also realize they are simply models that fit our measurements of the world, and that they can in turn be simplified to wrap our heads around them, but they will never be "normal", because they're not.

[@Khomyakov.Vladimir]

Fields as particles in latent time. ⏳ It is enough to remove the particle from the system (This happens during the measurement process) and the field will instantly disappear from all points of space (non-locally!), because it was formed by the particle in a hidden time interval Δth. This situation models the process of quantum state collapse.

[@lesseirgpapers9245]

Such garbage. This QM crap will collapse.

[@daarom3472]

Been following both chanels for a while now. Good stuff!

[@blindwhy]

Sabine, you are the best (and my favourite) “art grad string theorist”. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

[@natevanderw]

This is the way. Sabine is so artsy!

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

She's full of crap, too.

[@bullzebub]

my cats object! although they usually describe themselves as art grad string practicioners :-P

[@oliverwilson11]

Definitely an artist kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZjNY2Bmf7GnnMk

[@kirkkohnen5050]

@@bullzebub Living, dead, or both?

[@codeawareness]

The combination of accurate information with “I don’t know” is why i love your channel so much. ❤️💐

[@mrquicky]

I'm really not sure what was more amusing about the comments. Was it the belief that there's such a thing as a good string theorist? Perhaps, it's that people believe string theorists are an authority in mathematics, because they can eloquently explain how their own theory can never be proven. Either way, pretty hysterical.

[@fluentpiffle]

‘Particles’ are not anywhere at once.. They only exist as aspects of wave-function.. "Commendation from NASA for research work at Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the Earth's atmosphere and the Moon's surface for navigation of the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.. Dr. Milo Wolff has found the structure of the electron consisting of two spherical quantum waves, one moving radially outward and another moving radially inward. The center of the waves is the nominal location of the electron 'particle'. These waves extend infinitely, like charge force. All 'particle' waves mix and contribute to each other, thus all matter of the universe is interrelated by this intimate connection between the fundamental 'particles' and the universe. The natural laws are a direct consequence of this Wave Structure of Matter (WSM), thus WSM underlies all of science." spaceandmotion

[@hakiza-technologyltd.8198]

Dark matter /energy paradox SOLVED m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/kIKxiImHmJqmhKs

[@wailfulcrab]

It is "i don't know" until measured :D

[@gorojo1]

Arvin and Sabine are the two finest communicators in their space. It was nice to see you two pairing up.

[@JamesHunterRoss]

Knowing the "limits of language", or even that there might be such a limit, was a profound insight for me. (I was guided by the great philosopher Wittgenstein.) But once you accept such limits and become skeptical of what can be accomplished using our "ordinary language", you can avoid mistruths and confusions that, in the end, are nothing more than word games. Writing an article for a pop-sci audience is likely going to require serious compromise; Sabine gets serious kudos for trying, and for doing a pretty darn good job of it.

[@andreab380]

The problem, though, is that maths (like logic) is also a kind of language, albeit highly formalised. It also has evolved or is based on evolved faculties, so Sabine's criticism of normal language should apply to maths too. Wittgestein saw this and moved on to a more flexible theory of "language games" in his posthumous work. (I do believe that mathematical formalisation is incredibly effective, but that's no good reason to just trust it when you don't know what it means beyond the formalisation, as S. is encouraging us to do. That's just dogmatism 2.0.)

[@andsalomoni]

They are not the limits of language, they are the limits of classical physics. Our culture has been flooded with classical physics, and that's why we find Quantum Mechanics so difficult to understand, or "inconsistent". Go to some "savage" culture where magical thought is used, and they will understand the quantum mechanical concepts perfectly.

[@hakiza-technologyltd.8198]

Dark matter /energy paradox SOLVED m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/kIKxiImHmJqmhKs

[@aspidoscelis]

When we provide a natural language description of quantum mechanics, it is often not clear if we are describing the mathematical model or the phenomena the mathematical model describes. It is also not clear that those are alternatives we can distinguish meaningfully.

[@mikemondano3624]

Looks like you need to read his later work.

[@aaspookyaa]

Being an armchair physicist, I love Sabine's deep dives into these topics. She is a consumate explainer and drags my civilian brain to the upper limits. Thank you Sabine for all that you do.

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

They aren't that deep. They skip over the major humps.

[@grzesiekxitami3264]

@@wesbaumguardner8829 because it's inevitable, and that's why we love Sabine. Well, not only because of this

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

@@grzesiekxitami3264 Though she is amicable, she is just a bullsh!t artist like all the other physicists. They lie to everyone and distract them, tell them what they want to hear, but they really do not care about truth. If they did, they would have abandoned this nonsense a long time ago.

[@edcunion]

She's great, a right here right now opinionated skeptical positivist, always entertaining!

[@wojtek4p4]

​@@wesbaumguardner8829 Unfortunately simplifications are inevitable in a pop-sci video/article. To go deep into the topic you would need at least an introductory class, with all the inevitable math - which often has prerequisites like high-school level maths (which is over the head of most people). The purpose of the pop-sci media is to show the high-level concept, not go into technical details.

[@AndrewKnightMIT]

This is an excellent video. I also very much like how you admit "I don't know" when trying to answer these hard questions about what a mathematical superposition means in the real world.

[@yurinator4411]

Richard Feynman was great at explaining complex concepts, in plain language, to the public at large and to his students. "Feynman was once asked by a Caltech faculty member to explain why spin 1/2 particles obey Fermi-Dirac statistics. He gauged his audience perfectly and said, 'I’ll prepare a freshman lecture on it.' But a few days later he returned and said, 'You know, I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t reduce it to the freshman level. That means we really don’t understand it.'"

[@tahititoutou3802]

That is typical Feynman language. He also said, at the end of a lecture : "If you understood what I've said, then I haven't been clear".

[@adb012]

@@tahititoutou3802 ... And he also said at the beginning of a lecture "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics"

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

Well, that depends on what exactly one means with "understand". ;)

[@yurinator4411]

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 kzbin.info/www/bejne/hH6Qq4qKipyLY80&ab_channel=TehPhysicalist

[@r3b3lvegan89]

Mmm or it means we don’t understand what quantum mechanics actually is……we just keep spit balling without any stable resolve to explore or find. It’s called being lost in thoughts and mentally projecting.

[@nicokwapper]

Thank you very much for this excellent video. As a hairdresser with absolutely no mathematical or scientific background but with a healthy portion of curiosity I am intrigued by quantum theories and especially quantum computers. Now it makes sense to me why it is so hard to understand how quantum science works if you don't understand the math behind it.

[@paulcooper5904]

Love you Sabiine. Your explanations are so clear and concise. People need to watch you to understand how the world works!!

[@fluentpiffle]

‘Particles’ are not anywhere at once.. They only exist as aspects of wave-function.. "Commendation from NASA for research work at Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the Earth's atmosphere and the Moon's surface for navigation of the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.. Dr. Milo Wolff has found the structure of the electron consisting of two spherical quantum waves, one moving radially outward and another moving radially inward. The center of the waves is the nominal location of the electron 'particle'. These waves extend infinitely, like charge force. All 'particle' waves mix and contribute to each other, thus all matter of the universe is interrelated by this intimate connection between the fundamental 'particles' and the universe. The natural laws are a direct consequence of this Wave Structure of Matter (WSM), thus WSM underlies all of science." spaceandmotion

[@sonysantos]

I'm subscribed in both channels, and it's very satisfying to see the "crossover" with you both. Words are difficult, but I like to watch you both!

[@GeoffryGifari]

what is this, some kind of crossover episode?

[@hmp01]

@@GeoffryGifari its when content creators collab, you did not see this before?

[@michaelblacktree]

I'm also subbed to both. And I love it when my favorite youtubers collaborate.

[@skop6321]

@@GeoffryGifari no time to talk Erica is here

[@Randrew]

@@skop6321 Wait. I would have sworn Alice and Bob were wandering around, but now that you measured I only see Erica here!

[@msromike123]

I realized why I love this channel. Where else is science presented at this high of a level and still understandable by so many? Also, the presentation is no nonsense and her scientific rigor is obvious. She is not going to support pop science and doesn't mind telling you where the problems lie (when it is topical) in both the theory and practical applications of contemporary science. Wrap this in her delightful dry sense of humor, and voila!

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

It's not science, it's bullsh!t sold as science to people that do not know the difference.

[@elinope4745]

Sean Carroll has a really good channel and a sweet playlist where he explains a little about the math behind this and the ideas that the math is expressing so that you can understand better. You asked a question, I answered it.

[@Gamer-xb1eo]

Arvin Ash explains things even better.

[@arctic_haze]

You made it almost on time. I do appreciate the effort. Now, I will read your piece in the Guardian

[@FART-REPELLENT]

How many Sub-Atomic particles make up a flea-fart?

[@anoitecerempobrecido]

Thank you for trying every day to translate physics and math to the general curious audiences.

[@joyboricua3721]

Sabine & Arvin are my go-to saturday programs. Thank you both.

[@TysonJensen]

I prefer "any value between 0 and 1" to "it's both 0 and 1 at the same time." Especially in the context of the D-Wave devices, which don't even depend on entanglement and cannot give exponential speedups over classical computation, but rather use the fact that interference patterns of light are not limited by the normal limitations of digital computation -- all the possible values between 0 and 1 are equally involved in the patterns.

[@priwncess]

This

[@DrVictorVasconcelos]

Oh, but "it's both 0 and 1 at the same time" is wrong on so many levels. As a psychometrician I always had trouble with that definition; knowing enough statistics, the idea that a function that describes the probability of something being in various states is the sum of the probabilities of it being in each state could never be made to sound like something "is in all states at the same time". It just seemed to work like every probability density function ever. Obviously this is not the entire story--this is where you need to come in with the difference between classic and quantum that Sabine just explained in this video, but what I mean is that the concept seemed analogous enough that the explanation felt at least very probably wrong. Specially when it already seemed to me that physicists seemed to have many problems with theory, as Sabine highlighted in many of her previous videos. About three years ago I started watching all of PBS Space Time videos, and throughout the more "conceptual" of them I could remember thinking "man, these people really need to study some philosophy". Philosophy got such a bad rep because we study a bunch of useless things in middle and high school, but it's so much more than that when you get to college-level. But these days I feel like many people in STEM get no college-level philosophy classes, and that's really concerning. I remember being entirely confused when Steven Hawking said that philosophy was dead... but then I kind of understood when I saw so many misconceptions in physics. Anyway, it was really refreshing when Sabine started posting videos over many of the same concerns I had back then; stuff like the simulation hypothesis, fine-tuning arguments (incl. the multiverse), the quantum eraser, the "hard" anthropic principle (incl. stuff like the Doomsday Argument). Although, to be fair, PBS ST is pretty clear about the controversies here, Matt doesn't go all the way towards dismantling these ideas.

[@YbisZX]

I think "any value between 0 and 1" is more right only for those who aware about state space. For others it misleads to real number fractions.

[@PrivateSi]

But it's a 'value' that's relative to how it's measured physically and conceptually. You could think of the 'value' being 1,2,3 and possibly 4 values (ie. pitch, roll (spin) velocity).. Measurement will always destroy 'wave guides' that form at the quantum level of space. Wave Focal Point Guides if you believe most or quite possibly all of the extended wave energy is stored in the tiny focal point of the EM field disturbance that is matter-energy.. -- There's an extremely good chance space is pixeleated and 'all' possible values are not possible. a FINITE set of values is rather likely given much evidence of quantisation at the QUANTUM level, unsurprisingly.. Is space quantised - yes... and I'd argue all you need is a SPACIO-TEMPORAL LINK - a mechanism to temporally link 2 or more particles in space - synchronise them. -- The simplest solution i a STRAIGHT LINE of subspace 'pixels' (voxels, or Subspace-Balls more like) - vibrating between between entangled particles.. an AC vibration of subspace keeping the system in sync.. It's an INSTANT OFF FORCE - when a connection in the network is broken, the whole network stops at the next 'tick' and the field balances back to as close-packed as it can manage given the amount of EM radiation and EXTENDED MAGNETIC FIELD CIRCUITS that are similar but there are so many lines they exert a force. -- Everything makes more sense if you abandon up quarks and won quarks, and embrace the Electro-Positronic subspace field of tiny +ve old balls closed packed by -ve pixie farts... or +ve subspace positronic base quanta and -ve electro-gas... All phenomena can be described PHYSICALLY, not statistically, by the field trying to stay balanced... -- Knock a field cell free and you have at the very least (least dynamic model version) a +ve bulge the rest of the field repels centrally, spherically, and a -ve pinch left behind. Quite possible this causes a continuous in-out vibration too as the positron or electron tries to spit out it's excess cell or -ve charge and the field 'says' GET AWAY FROM ME in all directions!

[@Khomyakov.Vladimir]

Time crystals 'impossible' but obey quantum physics “Time crystals were long believed to be impossible because they are made from atoms in never-ending motion.” * * * Nonlinear two-level dynamics of quantum time crystals Nature Communications volume 13, Article number: 3090 (2022)

[@andrejkosir728]

Well made, as always. I think it is important to learn new things, not just in profession you are in, but also i general. One should stay curious and learn something every day. Your videos are the best.

[@MateusMeurer]

9:21 OMG I love Arvin, this animation is brilliant. It's so simple and yet none of the hundreds of videos from science communicators in three languages I watch have ever thought about it. In this field there are some that don't actually understand what they're trying to explain.

[@fluentpiffle]

‘Particles’ are not anywhere at once.. They only exist as aspects of wave-function.. "Commendation from NASA for research work at Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the Earth's atmosphere and the Moon's surface for navigation of the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.. Dr. Milo Wolff has found the structure of the electron consisting of two spherical quantum waves, one moving radially outward and another moving radially inward. The center of the waves is the nominal location of the electron 'particle'. These waves extend infinitely, like charge force. All 'particle' waves mix and contribute to each other, thus all matter of the universe is interrelated by this intimate connection between the fundamental 'particles' and the universe. The natural laws are a direct consequence of this Wave Structure of Matter (WSM), thus WSM underlies all of science." spaceandmotion

[@stephenhicks826]

The natural language of Physics is really mathematics and it's no surprise that a great deal of the precision and beauty is lost when trying to translate Physics concepts into English, German or anything other language. Having said that I think Sabine and Arvin and a handful of others do a brilliant job of doing just that. I am in awe of the analytical precision of Sabine's mind. It's scary!

[@rudolphmantoothbanksy5143]

Sabine, ur the most. Love it!

[@jddes]

Love the way you explain things so succinctly. I was trying to get this exact point across yesterday by informing someone electrons don't physically "spin." This video is just great for explaining why pop sci can be so confusing

[@hyperduality2838]

Spin up is dual to spin down -- the Dirac equation. The word binary implies DUALITY! Superposition = duality! Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality. Bosons are dual to Fermions -- atomic duality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Duality creates reality.

[@k54122]

Actually, I have learnt quite a bit from Sabine's videos. Especially the video on carbon capture and nuclear power. I think its ok to point out facts and have a meaningful discussion. But to call a physicist (with achievements under her belt) an art's graduate is just bad conduct and a feeble attempt to diminish a person. Sabine is doing a great job in enlightening people like myself on various topics and I hope she keeps making videos. 👍

[@fluentpiffle]

‘Particles’ are not anywhere at once.. They only exist as aspects of wave-function.. "Commendation from NASA for research work at Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the Earth's atmosphere and the Moon's surface for navigation of the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.. Dr. Milo Wolff has found the structure of the electron consisting of two spherical quantum waves, one moving radially outward and another moving radially inward. The center of the waves is the nominal location of the electron 'particle'. These waves extend infinitely, like charge force. All 'particle' waves mix and contribute to each other, thus all matter of the universe is interrelated by this intimate connection between the fundamental 'particles' and the universe. The natural laws are a direct consequence of this Wave Structure of Matter (WSM), thus WSM underlies all of science." spaceandmotion

[@hakiza-technologyltd.8198]

Dark matter /energy paradox SOLVED m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/kIKxiImHmJqmhKs

[@stynkus]

You are quite right. My first QM teacher in university made it very clear to us that you *CANNOT* describe quantum mechanics by anything other than mathematics. He said that trying to do so would only confuse those who don't have any experience with the math. I've tried multiple times with my wife (only because she's my wife and because she really, really wants to know about how quantum computers actually work) and she still doesn't get it... and even hinting at the math only makes her give me the 'glare'. 😆

[@janami-dharmam]

I was also told similarly; all measurements are unpredictable in advance and if you really do it you will never know that it means. The phase information is always lost in an actual measurement.

[@stynkus]

@@janami-dharmam I would always use Schrödinger's cat to try to explain quantum states to people because it's the most famous and one of the simpliest. And even so, people focus not on the probablistic and uncertain nature of quantum states that is destroyed when you actually measure (or in this case, check on the cat); but on the fact that a zombie cat cannot exist. It's an exercise in both frustration and futility to be sure

[@chriskennedy2846]

I remember starting work with a company about 15 years ago. It was my first day - I didn't know anyone and when another gentleman got on the elevator, I introduced myself as the "new guy" and then asked him what his job title was. He said that he was the Regional Manager and also the Director of Information Technology. I said "Wow, that sounds like a real Superposition."

[@user-sl6gn1ss8p]

@@stynkus I hope I'm not misremembering, but I think Schrödinger' himself didn't like the example, he meant it as an absurd or something. And it does have the problem of saying the cat is "both" alive "and" dead, which gives "reality" in "our space" to the states in the mathematical space, as Sabine put in the video - really, it's the same as saying a particle is both going left and right.

[@stormtrooper9404]

@@user-sl6gn1ss8p You are correct! Schroedinger himself was tormented by the meaning of his equation. Actually.. he hated his most famous discovery! Thus with the cat example, he tried to explain just how non-sensical and paradoxical it is… Yet Schroedinger of all, was most open-minded, and knew, supposed… that this model of QM is not final or correct one! In his lifetime the QM was advancing, all the experiments show him right, yet of all the physicists, he remained the most unconvinced that we are on the right path. So whenever we are in doubt, we should remember that his equation(and QM in general) are just model, a description that is “close enough”, but nothing more.

[@MrAlRats]

In The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol.III, there's a perfect explanation of the notion of superposition. If you know algebra and are familiar with complex numbers you can follow the explanation fully but it's possible to get the essential idea even without understanding the mathematics. It's by no means impossible to convey the notion of superposition or entanglement to a lay audience using simple english. In fact, I have read articles in Quanta magazine that does an excellent job at it. It just takes quite a lot more words than a typical article in a mainstream newspaper.

[@hyperduality2838]

Spin up is dual to spin down -- the Dirac equation. The word binary implies DUALITY! Superposition = duality! Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality. Bosons are dual to Fermions -- atomic duality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Duality creates reality.

[@Mayank-mf7xr]

@@hyperduality2838 Bosons are dual to Fermions? Also Bosons ~ waves and Fermions ~ particles? Rofl.

[@hyperduality2838]

@@Mayank-mf7xr The spin statistics theorem:- Symmetric wave functions (Bosons, waves) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions, particles) -- quantum duality. Bosons are dual to Fermions -- atomic duality. Waves are dual to particles -- the dual split experiment. Null vectors or light rays are perpendicular to themselves from our perspective -- self duality. Light or pure energy is therefore dual. Atoms which are built out of energy are therefore dual. Positive is dual to negative -- electronic charge. North poles are dual to south poles -- magnetic fields. Electro is dual to magnetic -- electro-magnetic energy is dual. Energy is duality, dualit is energy -- the 5th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda,

[@hyperduality2838]

@@Mayank-mf7xr Questions are dual to answers. Problems are dual to solutions. Thesis (problem) is dual to anti-thesis (reaction) synthesizes solutions -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Problem, reaction, solution -- the Hegelian dialectic (time dependent).

[@Mayank-mf7xr]

@@hyperduality2838 I want to point out that this is not what the (Quantum Mechanical) definition of a "dual" is. In Quantum Mechanics, the concept of a "dual" is important (and is very much required) . A dual space, a dual vector, a dual state etc. are used in introductory QM and are unavoidable if you want to learn QM. How you present (and malign) this concept of "dual" is hilarious and is misinformation in the context of this video. Your comment may be correct where nothing Quantum is going on, especially something like Philosophy because those guys love churning up BS up from anything and everything. Also, the part about Bosons and Fermions being "dual" and this being equivalent to waves being "dual" to particles is flat out wrong.

[@michaeljijus980]

Thank you for teaching us, "dummies" such a exciting topics. Thank you million times Lady Sabina ❤❤❤

[@docjohnson2717]

You go Sabine!!!....seems to me that language/semiotic is the key issue here and mathematics is just another "language".... not just ANYONE can speak that language....so we need people like yourself and A. Ash to translate as best you can...a fact that many of us greatly appreciate

[@TJ-hs1qm]

No unfortunately it's not. Even if everyone was fluent in Maths we would still have no clue what exactly we are looking at. I hope this will change in the future.

[@honzo1078]

There is certainly a big linguistic problem here, and current version of the math language is insufficient to, for example, give us 'quantum gravity' or 'relativistic sub-atomic particles.' I don't think this is just a matter of adding terms. It's a hole in the language a la Godel.

[@MaryAnnNytowl]

I learned a new word today, and that's damned rare for me! Semiotic: "a general philosophical theory of signs and symbols that deals especially with their function in both artificially constructed and natural languages and comprises syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics." Thank you!

[@aclearlight]

@@MaryAnnNytowl I was just about to go look it up and then came upon your generous post, thank you! Now I have to go look up "pragmatics" in context though...that's a new one, or system thereof.

[@luudest]

0:22 Just realized: Every intro is different, and fits perfectly to ‚what we will talk today‘. Love the many tiny details 👌

[@ijmad]

I found your channel recently and I just wanted to say you are fantastic at explaining things in terms that an interested layperson with a bit of math/physics knowledge can understand!

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Thanks and welcome!

[@citycrusher9308]

@@SabineHossenfelder You wrote for the Guardian? That fem trash publication? Sabine, how could you do this to me?

[@_John_P]

@@SabineHossenfelder Would make an episode about rotating wormholes? Thanks.

[@bnjm8868]

Thanks Sabine for you thoughts on the subject of superposition. Thanks for inviting Arvin also. He too has good content. 😊

[@Steve-ns6tx]

“Its hard to describe something you can’t directly experience”. In some ways Sabine is more mysterious than quantum mechanics.. we watch her videos every week and we still struggle to describe it. Thanks again for being mysteriously interesting to watch every week.

[@Special1122]

what's so mysterious about this statement? it's true. How can you describe what does wave function mean physically when as soon as you measure it disappears. When you measure some electromagnetic wave you can observe it without destroying. This isn't the case with the wave function

[@enzzz]

@@Special1122 You only theoretize how it behave before you measure right? Why can't you physically describe or visualize how it could be behaving before it disappears? Why does it matter whether it's destroyed by measuring? It's like saying, let's say you for some reason have very large binoculars when you are watching something, let's say a ball flying through space, but everytime you turn to watch the ball, you hit the ball with your large binoculars changing it's trajectory. But based on what you have seen where the ball landed otherwise you could theorize and explain what you think happened before that.

[@enzzz]

Also none of it is mysterious in my opinion. There are things we know, things we don't know, things we have no methods of checking, measuring or observing. Why is something mysterious in the first place? Saying something is mysterious to me says that "don't even bother to try understanding it".

[@Erilan5]

he's just flirting

[@viralsheddingzombie5324]

My theory is this...Sabine is a quantum holographic projection of a human.

[@jeancorriveau8686]

Arvin has explained it well. I started watching his videos a little over a year ago. I have some understanding of QM now (and theory of relativity). He asks the right questions, and so do you, Sabine.

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

No he hasn't. He is a simpleton. Go ahead and explain the particle theory of electromagnetic induction using his instructions. It's ridiculous. If there is absolutely nothing, no carrying medium between two inductive coils in a vacuum, there is absolutely no means of transfer of action between those two coils. But somehow, "miraculously" there is interaction in vacuum between two coils of wire separated by space.

[@ReynaSingh]

You have an excellent way with explanations

[@codeawareness]

Thanks!

[@Tight_Conduct]

Congrats on your new Brilliant course! You deserve it, I'm sure it'll be fantastic!

[@pastorpresent1]

I started out watching one video that was pitched to me by KZbin. Then I watched another after a while. Then three more. Now this is my go to place for clear science explanations expert!

[@fluentpiffle]

‘Particles’ are not anywhere at once.. They only exist as aspects of wave-function.. "Commendation from NASA for research work at Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the Earth's atmosphere and the Moon's surface for navigation of the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.. Dr. Milo Wolff has found the structure of the electron consisting of two spherical quantum waves, one moving radially outward and another moving radially inward. The center of the waves is the nominal location of the electron 'particle'. These waves extend infinitely, like charge force. All 'particle' waves mix and contribute to each other, thus all matter of the universe is interrelated by this intimate connection between the fundamental 'particles' and the universe. The natural laws are a direct consequence of this Wave Structure of Matter (WSM), thus WSM underlies all of science." spaceandmotion

[@nahoj.2569]

Thanks for the vid, trying to communicate science without losing accuracy has always seemed like a difficult and interesting challenge. This is why i like yours, PBS and 3blue1brown's vids, they explain science and mathematics without being overly simplistic.

[@CAThompson]

I like Scienceclic's videos too for explanations.

[@live_free_or_perish]

3blue1brown is the best math explainer I've ever seen

[@alvinuli5174]

The purpose of every video about physics is to let the viewer believe that he has understood a thing.

[@waynebernitt2806]

Making me go back and want to learn more about something I thought I had a handle on is priceless. Thank you.

[@JK-tr2mt]

Love it! Thanks for attempting to lift my fog -trying to explain the inexplicable.

[@lucyfrye5365]

I tried this at work, but people got upset. They asked me where the stapler was. So I explained it. Well, there is an 68% chance that you find it on my desk if you look. A 4% chance you find it in one of the desks next to it. A 0.1% chance for each of the other desks in the office. But it might also be in the building across the street, just not very likely. Until you found it. Then there is a 100% chance other people will find it there too. So they told me I am not a team player. These people....they know nothing.

[@classicsciencefictionhorro1665]

@@Mark-rw3kw Yours is a condescending response as Lucy knows very well what a stapler is and was making a humorous analogy (but in real life there is a chance, albeit extremely remote, that the stapler can appear elsewhere).

[@iamcomcy]

I read Zens Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, an early book on quantum mechanics, and I taught myself calculus in highschool. Calculus I found was the art of dividing by zero and lying about it, and quantum mechanics was statistics masquerading as physics. I think this video confirmed my early impressions. :-)

[@fluentpiffle]

‘Particles’ are not anywhere at once.. They only exist as aspects of wave-function.. "Commendation from NASA for research work at Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the Earth's atmosphere and the Moon's surface for navigation of the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.. Dr. Milo Wolff has found the structure of the electron consisting of two spherical quantum waves, one moving radially outward and another moving radially inward. The center of the waves is the nominal location of the electron 'particle'. These waves extend infinitely, like charge force. All 'particle' waves mix and contribute to each other, thus all matter of the universe is interrelated by this intimate connection between the fundamental 'particles' and the universe. The natural laws are a direct consequence of this Wave Structure of Matter (WSM), thus WSM underlies all of science." spaceandmotion

[@triplec8375]

Thank you, again, Sabine for an "eloquent" presentation. You don't need rich or flowery language to be eloquent. The ability to convey complex ideas in concise form certainly deserves the label of "eloquent". The title contains the phrase "two places at once" and that, I believe, is a large part of the problem with converting the math into language. We simply do not have words to describe relative time, that is, states where time is different from our observed time, including states where time is zero as, in the time experienced by a photon. If anything is travelling at c, time does not change from that entity's point of view, so it can certainly be in 2 places "at once". But what "at once" means is different for the observer and for the entity traveling at c, at which speed everything happens "at once". A photon is at home equally as it passes by ancient galaxies as it is passing through our detectors. For a photon, it's speed is infinite because no time passes between it's birth and its absorption. So, of course, everything happens "at once" for such a particle and it can be in 2 places "at once". Is it even meaningful to ask about simultaneous events from the position of an observer? Why would we think that our perspective as an observer is more useful/real than the perspective of the particle itself ?. We don't easily give up our vaunted positions of observers to take the position of the particle in question to try to find answers. But, if we do so, we will find some interesting outcomes. Among those is the idea that Time can quite possibly be a 4th spatial dimension despite the Inverse Square Law.

[@richardwebb9532]

Except, those two points can be on opposite ends of the universe, and will react immediately if one is flipped up, the other instantaneously flips down, regardless of distance. This should be impossible. Einstein called it spooky action at a distance.....

[@chrisalvino812]

This explanation made soooo much more sense to me. I used to be in computer science and never understood the PopSci explanation that a quibit could be in two states at once and that's what made quantum computers so special and fast. I was always like, "you can easily simulate a bit being in two states at once" and never saw where those crazy computational speeds were coming from. Explaining the quibits more as vectors in the wave function, and that the speed actually comes from entanglement, makes so much more sense. Would love to see a video about how entanglement is used in quantum computers to make them work

[@theotormon]

I like that you said "I don't know." I think that is the best start to explaining in plain talk what we do know.

[@live_free_or_perish]

Excellent explanation. I love the way you handle the frustration with humor. Math and physics appear mystical and totally opaque to most people. Since I rarely comment let me just say I watch all of your videos and really enjoy your content even though I never made it past differential equations and dropped out of a complex analysis class. Switched from math to engineering - much easier 😏

[@everythingisalllies2141]

Because Math is NOT Physics. This is the root cause of the weirdness... an imaginary world of Math pretending to be Physics. Can a particle (or anything) be in two places at the same time? Absolutely and certainly NOT. To even suggest otherwise is to display your ignorance of fundamental Physics.

[@live_free_or_perish]

@@everythingisalllies2141 how do you explain the effectiveness of math in describing the physical world? Math can exist without physics but physics cannot exist without math.

[@everythingisalllies2141]

@@live_free_or_perish You have believed the groundless hype. Math is only a simple counting tool, that's all. Sure you can do advanced counting, but Math is useless to describe anything. The best and the worst part of Math is those damn equations. All of them (equations) are inventions of Man's preconceived notions about the way things work. (that would be their understanding of Physics) You see, the understanding or misunderstanding of Physics, is what drives the development of the equations, which at best can allow the calculation of what will be the measured result if such and such were to occur. Now the "result" is NOT DRIVING Physics, the result obtained is but providing some resemblance of what we see in reality, sometimes very accurately resembling the realty, but its still just a set of numbers that approximately match what we get when we take actual measures. So how is being able to calculate what will happen, be somehow superior to actually taking the measures directly? No, Math is not king, UNDERSTANDING the Physical processes fully is KING, and must come before you try to develop any equations. Now it's possible to fully understand what is happening in the world of Physics, and I don't ever need to do any Math in order to understand or comprehend or describe whats going on. Even the fool Einstein said "if you cant explain Physics to a 6 year old, then you don't understand it yourself." I don't know any 6 y.o's who know much Math. Now as a tool, Math is essential, of course. IN every branch of Science and commerce and industry. But its still just a tool. Understanding ... comes first and without it, your Math only can give nonsense results, because you have developed nonsense equations. That's why I say Einstein was a fool. Because his equations are based on a lack of simple understanding of Physics.

[@hyperduality2838]

Spin up is dual to spin down -- the Dirac equation. The word binary implies DUALITY! Superposition = duality! Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality. Bosons are dual to Fermions -- atomic duality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Duality creates reality.

[@fluentpiffle]

‘Particles’ are not anywhere at once.. They only exist as aspects of wave-function.. "Commendation from NASA for research work at Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the Earth's atmosphere and the Moon's surface for navigation of the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.. Dr. Milo Wolff has found the structure of the electron consisting of two spherical quantum waves, one moving radially outward and another moving radially inward. The center of the waves is the nominal location of the electron 'particle'. These waves extend infinitely, like charge force. All 'particle' waves mix and contribute to each other, thus all matter of the universe is interrelated by this intimate connection between the fundamental 'particles' and the universe. The natural laws are a direct consequence of this Wave Structure of Matter (WSM), thus WSM underlies all of science." 'Math' has limited usage. It helps us to describe specific positions and calculate certain desirable measurements to ourselves, so that we may use finite reference points, but it breaks down at the level of describing a necessarily infinite reality. Thus, as it is with our 'senses', we need various different kinds of understanding, all working in tandem with each other to produce the 'bigger picture', and we have philosophy and psychology, arts and 'mysticism'/intuition, among others, evolved for this task. But because we live in an 'expert' driven society, all the 'senses' are at war with each other, jostling for control, when the only true understanding occurs when we emulate nature itself and work from a foundation of wholeness.. spaceandmotion

[@thomasjones3143]

This interpretation of the language also would explain why we experience time `moving forward' --- if we think of our perspective at a snap shot in time, there is only a single (or rather a very small number) of possible pasts that we can encounter, however there is an absolute explosion in the number of possible futures we can encounter... all of which happen. Thus we cannot know, in principle, about the future while we can know about the past --- and it is this differential in knowledge which makes time feel as if it is moving forward.

[@utgfy]

I follow your description of past, present moment, future (although I question the quantum idea that all possible futures actually do occur), and I do see the parallel that you're trying to draw here between quantum and classical states (future/wave function; past/fixed point) but I can't follow the connection that you're trying to make to the subjective experience of time moving forward. The logic seems circular: this is how it is; this is how we feel it; those things are therefore connected. The question you completely fail to address is WHY exactly would a knowledge differential lead to a sense of FORWARD movement? For example: You say that infinite possibility is lost to fixed experience (subjectively speaking, memory) as time flows over the horizon of the now and becomes past. But how exactly is that related to the subjective experience of time moving forward? Note that the metaphor I just gave actually implies the opposite, that time flows towards us, through us and then away, and thus backwards from our frame. Isn't it rather the hubristic human insistence on our own agency that reverses this and posits us as the rider on the cusp of a forward-moving time? Also, what exactly is the alternative that you're trying to highlight? That time doesn't move, but rather we move across a fixed 4-dimensional spacetime? That infinite futures all exist simultaneously, and there is no movement, just a collapsing of that wave function into a fixed point in the present, which immediately becomes past? Which is it?

[@TheDragorin]

I really appreciate these videos. I am a very logical/rational person and have always struggled with quantum concepts because it just seems absurd to me that something can physically be in two states at once. So i've always had a suspicion that there is something more to it that either we dont understand or just is being miscommunicated. Your explanations have made me view quantum mechanics with much less distain and validates my belief that even quantum phenomena should have a logical explanation to them,

[@daarom3472]

Check out Scott Aaronson on the Sean Carroll podcast. His explanations are great as well!

[@martifingers]

@@JudeMalachi Hi Lodro. Interesting argument but I am sceptical about placing too much emphasis on the evolutionary origin of our cognition. Not every trait in every species has survival advantage and anyway the very odd history of our species has meant we have made our own environment (as it were) to a large degree. We have also developed science that is a good way of transcending the limits of individual cognition. I totally agree with your point about naïve realists etc. In a related topic think Sir Roger Penrose was asked if he was a materialist and he answered something along the lines of he might be if someone could explain what material was... (I may have that horribly wrong BTW).

[@VeteranVandal]

It's not really two states at once if you think about it. It's another state that can be described in a basis as a sum. In fact, if you change the basis, you always find a set of orthogonal states to describe the rest of the space, and, once again, it seems now to be only 1 state. It's like vectors being decomposed in an x,y graph: the vector is the sum of both x and y components, it isn't the "x component and the y component at the same time", which would be an oversimplification of it. Yes, "x component and the y component at the same time" isn't far from what we are really doing when we sum the vectors, but it does make us more likely to confuse the vector and the components with each other and their effects. Yes, the sum is what we want and sometimes we can decompose and pay no price treating components separately. In quantum mechanics that just isn't the case. In very few situations you'll be able to go scot free of repercussions doing that. Much like vector projection, quantum mechanics isn't only about the measurements and effects. It's just that the math is well equipped to deal with this superposition situation, but most of our linguistical experience isn't. The Hilbert space is a vector space, with only 1 slight complication of accepting complex amplitudes. Mathematically this changes quite a few things and the complex numbers are essential in the description of said space, which is why decomposing a vector in x,y is also not exactly like quantum mechanics, but it's a lot closer to it than "two things at the same time" suggests, which makes "two things at the same time" not useful to describe quantum mechanics. The Bloch sphere representation is better to describe the situation, but isn't perfect either, tho useful. I agree with Sabine that we should ALWAYS avoid saying that "two things at the same time" since it's misleading and actually muddles the subject without real need. I actually learned that very early on in my quantum mechanics courses, which does make quite a few questions about quantum mechanics instantly clearer.

[@antonystringfellow5152]

"logical explanation"? - Certainly. Explainable? - No. Sabine does a great job by explaining that our language(s) have not been created to describe the quantum world as they come from a time when we didn't even know there was such a thing. But it's more than that, it's also our minds. Our brains have evolved to give us the best chance of surviving and reproducing succesfully. They achieve this by interpreting things in the World around us as economically as possible, which is a trade-off between the ability to understand and make decisions and energy consumption. It was never advantageous for our ancestors to understand such things as the electromagnetic field, atoms and molecules and certainly not quantum mechanics. They could not even experience these things. As the quantum world is so different from the classical world that emerges from it, there aren't even any good analogies between the two. Even something as simple as the electron is beyond our comprehension. We may refer to it as a particle and may imagine it as a tiny sphere but in reality it's no such thing - it is not actually a particle, like a grain of sand is a particle, it's a particle wave. And as for its shape, we're not even sure it has any size, let alone shape.... Really! So, not only do we not have the language to describe the quantum world, we don't even have the hardware (brain) to comprehend it. We can learn the math or we can use analogies but we should always be aware that such analogies are far removed from the reality. As long as we accept that, they can be useful if somewhat limited.

[@enzzz]

Why can't it be just explained like: a) There's some entity somewhere, for which we don't know the position of. b) We can measure where it is. c) Based on historical data where we have measured many such entities we were able to devise a probabilistic model where it could land. Why is it any different than figuring out where the ball in a roulette game ended up?

[@macfrankist]

Hello Sabine. Fellow physicist here. I believe that language and how it is used by people is really keeping physics from evolving.

[@PearlyMates]

I understand a small amount of what you talk about but I enjoy that small amount, and I like listening to you speak…

[@LouisGedo]

4:56 😆 🤣 😂 This may be the funniest thing ever on your channel......can't stop laughing!

[@Egonkiller]

Smoothest burn hahahaha

[@LouisGedo]

@@Egonkiller Indeed........ Sabine's delivery spot on!

[@barryon8706]

Not having an intuitive model can be a greater or lesser barrier to almost anyone, I think. There are people who won't believe that a photon can have characteristics of a particle and a wave, because it's so unintuitive to them. There are also people who think the earth is flat because they can't understand how "down" can be more complicated than they think.

[@hyperduality2838]

Spin up is dual to spin down -- the Dirac equation. The word binary implies DUALITY! Superposition = duality! Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality. Bosons are dual to Fermions -- atomic duality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Duality creates reality.

[@fluentpiffle]

‘Particles’ are not anywhere at once.. They only exist as aspects of wave-function.. "Commendation from NASA for research work at Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the Earth's atmosphere and the Moon's surface for navigation of the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.. Dr. Milo Wolff has found the structure of the electron consisting of two spherical quantum waves, one moving radially outward and another moving radially inward. The center of the waves is the nominal location of the electron 'particle'. These waves extend infinitely, like charge force. All 'particle' waves mix and contribute to each other, thus all matter of the universe is interrelated by this intimate connection between the fundamental 'particles' and the universe. The natural laws are a direct consequence of this Wave Structure of Matter (WSM), thus WSM underlies all of science." spaceandmotion

[@majpay]

"Can particles really be in two places at once" Can you give me feedback, if my perspective on the subject is kind of right or completely wrong? In spacetime - once time becomes meaningless, "position" becomes meaningless, so with particles moving at the speed of light (which renders time non-existent for the particle), it is not possible to describe any of its properties unless you slow it down, which is what happens if you measure it. From that moment the properties of the particle and all its properties in "the past" (speaking of time) have to be determined. If time would not exist for me - in "your" spacetime - i could be everywhere at all the time or everywhere at once but i will be somewhere at sometime by a certain chance. So a particle of light, reaches its "destination" in the very moment it was emmitted no matter how much distance separates those 2 points in spacetime. It is absolutely fascinating to think about it even if its nonsense :D

[@fluentpiffle]

‘Particles’ are not anywhere at once.. They only exist as aspects of wave-function.. "Commendation from NASA for research work at Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the Earth's atmosphere and the Moon's surface for navigation of the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.. Dr. Milo Wolff has found the structure of the electron consisting of two spherical quantum waves, one moving radially outward and another moving radially inward. The center of the waves is the nominal location of the electron 'particle'. These waves extend infinitely, like charge force. All 'particle' waves mix and contribute to each other, thus all matter of the universe is interrelated by this intimate connection between the fundamental 'particles' and the universe. The natural laws are a direct consequence of this Wave Structure of Matter (WSM), thus WSM underlies all of science." spaceandmotion

[@Alan-zf2tt]

My take is that the theory lives in the possible domain but the observations live in the probable domain. And the possible domain contains the probable domain plus a good bit more mainly possible outcomes with very low probability hence excluded from the probable domain. A similar situation exists for tossing a coin. The possibilities that needs to be considered to cater for all possible outcomes does not match the range of accepted probable outcomes. But I am naive in these things

[@hakiza-technologyltd.8198]

Dark matter /energy paradox SOLVED m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/kIKxiImHmJqmhKs

[@monteircarlo55]

Ooo, love the subject. You are such a eloquent educator and clear thinker, again thanks. Sincere fan.

[@Misophist]

May be this tid bit of philosophy also helps in explaining part of the problem: - "Die Grenzen meiner Sprache bedeuten die Grenzen meiner Welt." - "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen." Tractatus logico-philosophicus, Ludwig Wittgenstein, please excuse the German original. Roughly translated: - "The limits of my language stand for the limits of my world." - "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" Wikiquote also offers this not quite original amalgamation: "The limits of my language are the limits of my mind. All I know is what I have words for" What a luck, that with mathematics, we now have an alternate language actually capable of expressing these thoughts, although our imagination is still unable to grasp it....

[@Harkmagic]

I find that explaining superposition as a simple mathematical concept clears up a lot of confusion with people. Simply saying that, superposition means that you can add equations to eachother and still produce a valid solution, helps immensely to demystify quantum mechanics. Simply treating people as though they are smart enough to understand difficult concepts works much better than trying to simplify the language for everyday people.

[@johneonas6628]

Thank you for the video.

[@robertbutsch1802]

Another great video. This is the conclusion I have come to after watching many of your and Arvin’s YT videos. The quantum wave function is understood as as specifying at all points in space values which constitute the square roots of probabilities for detecting - when it is measured at the classical level - the relevant quantum system at the points. Classical level probabilities are not a real phenomenon but just an expression of how much knowledge we have (or do not have) about a system. No sort of process is going on inside a flipping coin that determines whether it lands heads or tails. There is no reason to believe quantum probabilities are any different. The probabilities are not a real phenomenon so the wave function is not a real, natural phenomenon.

[@danlogan7332]

Is a flipping coin in a superposition of heads and tails whilst still in the air?

[@robertbutsch1802]

@@danlogan7332 Clearly not. We have physics and physical explanations to explain what goes on when a coin is flipped, even if we can’t employ those to sufficient precision to always predict how the coin will land. The probability point of view view arises strictly from this lack of ability for sufficiently precise measurements. For QM there are not physics or math to explain superpositions of quantum particles, a photon being in multiple places at one time or passing through two slits at one time, etc. Thus these sorts of weird behaviors cannot be considered in any sense real, natural phenomena. And since the wave function essentially describes a wave of probabilities and since probabilities are not an actual phenomenon of nature, neither is the wave.

[@pukpukkrolik]

“Probability” is a model for anything that behaves in agreement with Kolmogorov’s axioms (butchered: lies between 0 to 1, sums up in total to 1). It can be knowledge, frequency, proportion, or something different. I don’t think we have a good clue what QM probabilities may actually represent. I only have the most basic popsci knowledge of QM though, but hearing about stuff like negative probabilities doesn’t make it feel similar to our intuitive concepts.

[@enzzz]

@@robertbutsch1802 So the only difference is that we just don't know the exact mechanisms what cause it to be in certain state? What's wrong with the description: It's like flipping a coin, we don't know how it will land before it actually lands (or we measure it), except with qubit we don't know what are the underlying forces like gravity and others that cause the final result? Or we don't even need any sort of physical example. What's wrong with the following description: 1. There's an entity, which according to past tests has probabilities of being in this and this places. 2. We can finally measure the place where it actually is. 3. We don't know what caused it to go into that place. We do not know what the forces or mechanisms were, because we don't know of a way or there is no way to see that.

[@enzzz]

In addition - where did the "it can be in 2 states at the same time" even come from? If we only realize which state it is once we measure it, then how would we even know it could be in 2 states at the same time, if we have never measured it to be like that?

[@cdcarson3986]

your great. love your spirit. I'm an vetern who just likes listening to you. I have no degrees, just a great interest in science. love how you explain things. Thunk you. "David Carson''

[@JCC503]

Her using the last few minutes to respond to some of the comment trolls with just the right amount of shade was so good I had to subscribe.

[@zyxzevn]

Ok let me ask a practical question. What is exactly the difference between a wave interference and the probability wave? And where can we observe this difference? I have only seen experiments that show that there is no difference. Until the wave causes a state change in some substance. Like a sensor or cloud chamber. There are also experiments that show that this interaction is continuous instead of quantized. The quantum jump seems to be a jump in state instead of a jump in space and time. As if there is a threshold. And it seems to work for alpha particles very well. But we will see what s right. The magical jump through space and time. Or the simple change of local state, hidden by an observable threshold.

[@evinnra2779]

Arts grad here, sorry to interject , but what you talk about sounds rather similar to how Leibniz explained what change actually is. Philosophers argued a lot about how matter interacting at a distance is at all possible, Leibniz argued that there are no gaps and no jumps in the 'plenum' of reality.

[@zyxzevn]

@@evinnra2779 Arts is probably better in understanding this. Because they do not get lost in equations. I was planning to become PhD and more, but I found most of the PhD were failures. They just seemed to be overspecialized in one area which enabled to get their degree. This also means that they are very clearly locked into group-thinking. And I see this here too. Sabine is seeing that something is weird. But the "expert" tells us a religious story about something that is impossible to understand unless you are a zealot. And I am here just pointing out that there are clear experiments that show that QM is based on certain assumptions. Assumptions that we can easily test. And according to the tests that I see, certain assumptions are falsified. For example. The transfer of energy is assumed to be quanta-sized. But we calculate it as if it is continuous, like a wave. So the quanta-sization happens at the interaction with other matter. Which is called the measurement. This means that the matter is reacting in a quanta-sized way. And not the wave like distribution of energy. So a photon does not exist. Even more breaking with assumptions.. if one photon (or one cycle of Electromagnetic energy) is distributed among different receptors, all receptors randomly react as if they received a photon. On average one, but sometimes zero and sometimes 2 or more. A laboratorium worker Erik Reiter has tested many of these cases, he has his own channel. He is not a good communicator, and It took me a while to understand him. And what is the solution to this? The forgotten loader theory of Max Planck. All atoms receive the energy. But a threshold needs to be reached for the received energy. And when it is reached, the state of the atom changes. So if you start with a random energy-states, the atoms seem to react at random to the incoming energy. The energy transfer can be seen in super-conducting circuits. They can also behave like collectors of energy with a threshold.

[@dennisbrown5313]

A wave interference is real when one views water waves which we extend to the physics/math of quantum mechanics. This concept works great (in the math) for light waves and even particles in the double slit experiment. The probability waves in QM can entangle via interference and that results in two very different results in the double slit depending on what one is trying to measure: that is, when you try to determine which slit the particle went through you get a very different result and the particle is always going through just one slit. Otherwise, the particle final results (when all added up) show a pattern that is consistent with the idea that the particle went through both slits.

[@zyxzevn]

@@dennisbrown5313 Thanks for reply. Be careful: a theoretical interpretation is not the real-world experiment. We have to go back to the real-world experiment itself, and consider what is happening. Any measurement is an exchange of energy. And this is true for both EM-waves and QM-probability-waves. If you do a measurement of a wave via a sensor, EM also states that you get an additional wave that disturbs your original wave. It also models the energy exchange. The Schrodinger equation describes the resonance of energy in a potential. So this is very abstract and often true for many systems. It does not tell us how the system works. And it does not work at certain border-conditions. In this case the sensor. And the conflict is the "measurement problem" at the sensor. The conflict can be solved in 2 ways. We can say that there is a particle going from source to destination. Or we can say that the energy from the source distributed to everywhere. And at the destination we collected enough energy to reach a threshold. And this brings the destination into a different state. Max Planck and others had considered the second option, but then the particle idea became popular. Though, not for any scientific reason. See we need tests to confirm or falsify its validity. In teal-world talk: A CCD-cell receives enough energy that it can create an electrical signal to the chip. This needs a change in the electrical energy state of the cell. With the current technology there are many ways we can now manipulate the sensitivity of these sensors. And at the maximum setting we also get a lot of thermal noise. If we reduce all the noise to the minimum, we still get detections of multiple "photons', when we send one photon in a system. (Still one on average). And this mainly confirms the existence of a threshold, and falsifies the particle model for light. There are also experiments that can do the same with Alpha particles via nuclear decay. Also double-detection from one alpha-particle. And what I want to see are Alpha particles in a smoke-chamber, combined with a double detection. I am curious what we will see. In this threshold model,,matter is more like a energy plasma, instead of something solid. How many waves would a photon be? We can also send and receive partial EM-waves via antennas to different places. Which means that we can receive far less than one wave. To proof the last statement..Veritasium has this video about an electrical field transferring from one electrical line to the other electrical line. This is only a fraction of a wave. And one can easily add 10 more lines that will also react. So a photon does not even make sense as a EM-wave. And this is at the basis of the photon theory.

[@evinnra2779]

@@zyxzevn When you write; "All atoms receive the energy. But a threshold needs to be reached for the received energy. And when it is reached, the state of the atom changes. So if you start with a random energy-states, the atoms seem to react at random to the incoming energy." you describe precisely how I visualized Leibniz's metaphysics.

[@BB-cf9gx]

I read Lost In Math. It's seemed that one of the many points the book was making is that math is a very useful language to describe the quantum universe but math is not physics.

[@fluentpiffle]

"Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation." (Richard P. Feynman) "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (Albert Einstein, 1954) "Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight." (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe) "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla) "..scientific training is not well designed to produce the man who will easily discover a fresh approach." (Kuhn, 1962) "History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992)

[@BB-cf9gx]

@@fluentpiffle great selection of quotes. Thanks

[@fluentpiffle]

@@BB-cf9gx You’re welcome..

[@michaelrabatscher831]

Thanks Sabine! Love how you get it to the point - how can a language convert the idea of the complex number and all it's features to the "real" world that exists in real numbers....

[@robertjmakowski4047]

IMHO, some of Sabine's best videos have been on quantum mechanics. this one is no exception, particularly nice was borrowing another author to help add his perspective.

[@gcarlson]

Layman here. Thanks for giving me a description that led me to the "ah! yes!" You somehow relate to my limited mathematical understanding. Always enjoy your videos, and the meme clips... deep diving cultural stuff. Your comments on the comments got a couple of guffaws too. Thanks and appreciate the new sub to A. Ash!

[@rickkearn7100]

Your experience in this event brings to mind an old saying: "Don't shoot the messenger!".

[@arnesaknussemm2427]

I’ve always thought about a quantum superposition as a way to communicate possibilities or potentials rather than what something actually is. Before a measurement , a particle could potentially be here or there, with each possibility having a particular probability of a being where we do actually find the particle when we look for it. Is that too simple?

[@duncanhw]

It's definitely a 'healthy' way of thinking about it, but be wary of Bell's inequality -- the particles (in the Copenhagen interpretation) don't have some predetermined value

[@nochill9722]

Hey Arne we were looking for you.

[@Euquila]

@@duncanhw what if there is a set of particles (not SM particles, just some abstract entities) that live in some higher dimensional space that follow chaotic patterns? When we make an observations, the random outcome is the instantaneous projection of the set of particles down to 3D space. Does this jive with Bell's inequality? Or does the fixed nature of the higher dimensional particles (despite being chaotic) still cause this theory to fail due to Bell's inequality?

[@ricomajestic]

The message of quantum mechanics is that it doesn't have a here OR there. It has no definite location. If you assume that it has a here or there then you can never make quantum mechanics describe experimental observations.

[@duncanhw]

@@ricomajestic "Here or there" is an expression. He means that the particle has no fixed position.

[@damienasmodeus928]

I have a question. Does the bloch sphere have any resolution or a smallest unit? Can you really use any numer on it? Like 0.000000000 ... Bazilion zeros... 0001 ?

[@MichaelDeHaven]

Not a mathematician, but if it is analogous to extending the real number line in to 3D complex space... I would imagine it would lack a smallest size or unit, just like the real number line itself.

[@niklas5336]

The Bloch sphere as defined in the mathematics of quantum mechanics has no "resolution", your coefficients can take on *any* complex value - even transcendental ones like fractions of pi or uncomputable constants. Whether this maps to physical reality is a question that's probably impossible to answer due to the amount of time it would take to experimentally observe such small differences in probability. I personally would find it extremely surprising to learn that real numbers map directly to actual physical reality (due to every real number essentially containing "infinite information"), but they are a useful mathematical tool to help you analytically solve equations such as the ones used in quantum mechanics, so whether or not real life actually has this "resolution" is inconsequential.

[@xenphoton5833]

Between zero and one there lies infinity

[@vicboykin8576]

I think I am a quintessential example of the popsci audience. I don't know any of the math involved. I know that's a huge handicap in understanding these subjects. I really appreciate the time you and Arvin Ash take to try and make these fascinating subjects accessible to people like me. I also enjoy Matt at PBS Space Time and Don Lincoln (though he has an aire of smug arrogance about him.) I really enjoyed Lost In Math, and hope you will release more similar books. I'm reading Dr. Susskind's Einstein's Unfinished Universe right now. For people like me who literally get lost in the math, it is so great to have resources who can describe these subjects in term I can understand and still find enjoyment in learning about quantum theory even if there is no direct translation from math to layperson.

[@OhAncientOne]

Love learning from you ! You are a Master, in the Art of communication. And in the Art of asking the right questions. I love how you present things to think about.

[@NeilLeSheepyEpstein]

She lost me at “ today”

[@dj_laundry_list]

The real question is, can a probability density function be in two places at once?

[@mlguy8376]

Depends on what you mean - a pdf can be over all space. You can have multimodal pdfs. But maybe I am missing something

[@Achrononmaster]

That's totally not a sensible question @'DJ Laundry List'. The density function itself describes the potential for being in two (or more) places/states, there is only ONE density function.

[@mlguy8376]

@@rpitit as long as I can read it with acrobat reader! 😅

[@falquicao8331]

Yes, but can the pen used for writing that function be in two places at once?

[@irneseip2592]

Mrs.✨ Sofia is the right person to start trading cryptocurrency with.. she knows her way in the crypto world.. she has been helping me increase my investments daily for months.... She is a genius, has approached 1btc through her

[@helenleahy4396]

Wow I' m just shock someone mentioned expert Mrs Sofia I thought I'm the only one trading with her

[@helenleahy4396]

She helped me recover what I lost trying to trade my self

[@ankushverma9392]

Thanks for the recommendation

[@ankushverma9392]

I just contacted her and she attends to me nicely

[@janeddins3405]

She has made success easier than we thought

[@mathsciencefancier]

This video is the simplest and easiest explanation for qubits. Thanks a lot!

[@GururajBN]

1.50. “Usually I am not that eloquent “.- I discount it as the understatement of the year by you! Arvin ash made a good point: “The behaviour is quantum but the result of the measurement is classical”. That explains the inadequacy of human languages to describe the quantum phenomena. I wonder how will a commercial manufacturer of computers grapple with this slippery beast and produce quantum computers. I hope that I shall be alive to see that epoch making event.

[@gehardcev]

Hallo Sabine & Arvin ! I graduated in 2004 from Institute Technogy Bandung Indonesia, with final project discussing quantum computing Simon & Shor Algorithm. At that time its so few references. I wish I saw your youtube contents 20 years ago, very much ease for me hehehe....

[@nowonmetube]

10:00 This reminds me of subpixels, you can't see them but they are there detection calculation.

[@viscache1]

I know one thing that is certain. I cannot be in two places at once…(obviously) so when Sabine posts a new video…I’M RIGHT HERE! Hilarious intelligent science is medicine for this retired physicist’s…er…arts grad’s?…soul! For sure: ‘Language < Maths > Experience’. Oh! Heisenberg~ you bedevil us!

[@wpherigo1]

Well done! You made me think I understood you! I like AlvinAsh’s explanation as well as yours.

[@pkvidmanback]

loved the explanation. very clearly shows the concept and with the images and commentary, it's hard not to understand exactly what you mean! Great stuff!

[@diabetesasia]

Dear Sabine , Brilliantly explained , Qubit and superposition,You are brilliant Teacher and scientist

[@epgui]

I love how much emphasis you placed on the semantic difficulties. Language shapes (or rather, determines) how we think, and without the mathematical language, we don't have the capacity to really understand anything (let alone the "meaning" of things, if one can speak of meaning at all).

[@richardasmus9426]

I satisfy much of my curiosity by defining the words "particle" and "universe" as ambiguous concepts we will never really understand because their existence is outside our range of comprehension. I like to conclude with some indigenous ideology that "there is nothing so small that it's not made up of trillions of particles, each or which is made up of trillions of particles... ad the infinitesimal." In this soup, I believe there are consciousnesses that perceive the original particle as we perceive our universe. It goes the other way too. Our universe is only one of several trillions of similar entities that make up the next entity, which is only one of ... ad infinitum.

[@zarblitz]

There is a language to describe quantum mechanics: mathematics. Trying to translate that into other languages is like trying to translate a German pun or wordplay into English: it’s going to take a lot of explaining and it probably won’t have the same impact.

[@TedToal_TedToal]

Great job explaining things as usual. As I absorb more and more words about quantum mechanics and its behavior I feel that I am gradually understanding it better and better, although of course like everybody else I’ll never really understand it.

[@fluentpiffle]

‘Particles’ are not anywhere at once.. They only exist as aspects of wave-function.. "Commendation from NASA for research work at Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the Earth's atmosphere and the Moon's surface for navigation of the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.. Dr. Milo Wolff has found the structure of the electron consisting of two spherical quantum waves, one moving radially outward and another moving radially inward. The center of the waves is the nominal location of the electron 'particle'. These waves extend infinitely, like charge force. All 'particle' waves mix and contribute to each other, thus all matter of the universe is interrelated by this intimate connection between the fundamental 'particles' and the universe. The natural laws are a direct consequence of this Wave Structure of Matter (WSM), thus WSM underlies all of science." spaceandmotion

[@happyhome41]

Wonderful -- worth listening twice - to arrive at much better understanding.

[@PabloRodriguez-sf7ex]

Hello Sabine! Your work is very inspiring. I think it would be very interesting if you could dedicate a video to explain how you prepare the scripts of your videos, what methodology you usually use to research the topics you deal with, etc. I would also like to know what procedures you think are most effective to find reliable sources, contrast information, and make sure you are not showing biased information. Greetings from Spain

[@fluentpiffle]

‘Particles’ are not anywhere at once.. They only exist as aspects of wave-function.. "Commendation from NASA for research work at Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the Earth's atmosphere and the Moon's surface for navigation of the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.. Dr. Milo Wolff has found the structure of the electron consisting of two spherical quantum waves, one moving radially outward and another moving radially inward. The center of the waves is the nominal location of the electron 'particle'. These waves extend infinitely, like charge force. All 'particle' waves mix and contribute to each other, thus all matter of the universe is interrelated by this intimate connection between the fundamental 'particles' and the universe. The natural laws are a direct consequence of this Wave Structure of Matter (WSM), thus WSM underlies all of science." spaceandmotion

[@dhill4001]

Your presentations are wonderfully entertaining and informative. Every so often I find them inspiring. Today, you made me think of a metaphor for understanding QM. A zoetrope was a Victorian toy consisting of a series of still photos arranged on the inside circumference of a cylinder with a viewing opening opposite each. When the cylinder is spun on its axis and viewing through the openings, one perceived the sequence of stills as being in motion. If all one can see is the moving picture, one must try to infer the existence of the stills. Likewise, all we see is the measured particle and must try to infer the underlying reality. The problem is not in our stars...

[@keything8487]

thank you for the video !!...i was caught up in the "physicality" of the 2 states at one time .....i look forward to learning more from you and Arvin in future videos.......we appreciate you making easier for us laymen to understand. sincerely.

[@jankriz9199]

This was one of your best videos yet. I am truly thankful for your work and I promise once i go through phd i will hit sub on that patreon like a madman, you well deserve it.

[@LearnThaiRapidMethod]

Excellent discussion. I think a useful (but still rather blunt) analogy is to think of quantum states a bit like describing personality traits or behavior. When you describe a person as kind or dishonest or lazy, it's based on a kind of threshold point because we know that no-one is always, consistently or thoroughly kind, dishonest or lazy. And there is no objective point that determines what someone's personality trait is. Choosing a term is kind of like collapsing the wave function: a "lazy" person might be diligent in certain aspects of her life and may appear to be so to someone she works with, but may be lazy at home and appear to be so to her family. In this sense, she is "in two places at once", and her actual state is determined by the observer at the point of contact. In general, we experience and describe life as "trends"; and we are sometimes quite good at making a distinguishable determination: it's raining, it's sunny, it's hot, it's cold, it's sweet, it's sour. But we're often not good at doing so also: he's masculine, he's effeminate, she's overweight, the sea is green, the sea is blue, the economy is improving, crime is on the rise, drugs are harmful, etc. Even when it's something fairly mathematical, like negative or positive - at what point is something negative enough to be identified as a negative (and similarly for positive)? In mathematics, -0.00000001 is negative... but in a quantum/probabalistic/human world, you are not really overdrawn if you went over by less than $1, say. Or even $10. Maybe $20? How about $50? Some banks give you a buffer of $100 or $200 before declining a payment. (So here again, it kind of depends on the observer to determine the "collapsing" point.) For quantum computers, I suspect that there is some kind of predetermined parameter that determines when a state is 0 or 1. Perhaps it should be with a probability of at least 50% (or 67% or 85%??) one way or the other for it to "flip" ("collapse") to any particular state. I don't know anything about quantum computers, so I'm guessing here. In a digital computer, a bit can only be 0 or 1; but I suppose in a quantum computer, a qubit could be 0, 1 or indeterminate. It's unlikely that "indeterminate" can practically be determined a third state. So it's likely that the logic circuits simply have to wait until each qubit has "resolved" / "collapsed" its state to either 0 or 1? A bit like waiting for a human to click on Yes or No in an interactive form... We behave similarly in life. A very close margin in the elections should really be discounted and redone. But when it comes to constitutional changes, we're not so blasé and want a clear 2/3rds majority before permitting such a change.

[@daviddurham8583]

TIQM (Transactional interpretation), however you feel about that interpretation, at least makes it easier to explain quantum mechanics using conventional language.

[@daviddurham8583]

Or is it Retro Causality? kzbin.info/www/bejne/n5rbo4GebL2ja68

[@Splattertube]

QBert? I loved that game! 😊 Thank you for this, Sabine. A video I actually could understand about something I understand so little.

[@drakon489a]

You are the only one who I have heard explained the probability wave format of the 0 and 1 values. thank you

[@drakon489a]

Alright so now that the sphere concept was introduced to me, correct me if I am wrong. the sphere acts like the light cone of probability through time, but for the partical's state of being?

[@polandturtle]

"In many states at once" is computer science talk for the fact that for a classic computer to do what a quantum one does in one step, the classic computer would have to visit many classical states in one step when it only visits one. So a classical computer, searching for a number, must visit many wrong answers to rule them out, but a quantum computer can shape a probability distribution where a random answer will be observed on measurement with very low probability of being wrong. So the "states" are the states of a Turing Machine in this language, not necessarily the physics "state" of the wave. Each state a Turing machine can be in at any point during computation is observable without the observation altering it, so there are many Turing machine state equivalents (measurements) for a given physics state.

[@thebotformalityknownasdale2564]

You Rock ! Sabine Thanx

[@spencerwenzel7381]

My favorite videos are when they answer questions I didn't know that I had 👍 keep up the good work

[@djayjp]

Great video as always. I think the danger with a technical, abstract term becoming widely adopted is that it can create the tendency to use a kind of mental shortcut that doesn't capture the actual meaning or truth of a process. How many people can actually visualize the perpendicular oscillating wave of each electric and magnetic fields when they say "electromagnetic"? Likewise, how many people will understand the meaning behind "superposition" if it becomes widely adopted? Especially considering the latter case is largely up for debate as far as what is actually occurring prior to observation (much like whether the wavefunction is even real).

[@Axel_Andersen]

Hear! Hear!

[@Erik_001]

Love your work. Thank you.

[@trevorgwelch7412]

Every Particle Has a " Ghost Particle "

[@Life_42]

I love your videos and research so much!