de Broglie Waves - Sixty Symbols

The strange world of de Broglie waves and particles.
With Roger Bowley
More physics at www.sixtysymbol...

[@Some_Awe]

Einstein casually walking in at 20seconds

[@BharatPatel-bb6lj]

Hahaha

[@sexybeast7728]

0:20 For lazy bastards.

[@paradox8836]

Fucc it's an anime character

[@NormadYT]

kotomi ichinose nhhhhhhhh

[@katiekatie6289]

He's a time traveller!

[@greenmario3011]

I think of particles as blobs that bend and deform like waves, but bounce off thing and shrink into points when you measure them.

[@TeslaRifle]

There's a book by Johan Prins called Physics Delusions, and in it if I remember right, he addresses the screwiness by saying that all particles are actually just waves that have been scrunched together by tight boundary conditions so that they appear as defined 'point particles'.

[@HeavyMetalMouse]

One of those things that, if you think you understand it, you're probably thinking about it wrong. Science is wonderful like that. :)

[@robinbebbington7063]

These are so addictive

[@ramansb1213]

this professor is a boss

[@fleshcookie]

so.. would you call something like this... screwy?

[@benplus2053]

if you are not sure whether a person deserves a doctorate and Nobel price just ask Einstein.

[@jefferylubinski528]

If einstein needs help figuring out how to make something work he called Charles "Proteus" Steinmetz . Whom many still dont know about. And act like tesla is the only one that was excluded by edison...

[@kareldegreef3945]

@@jefferylubinski528 at least de Broglie saw the other end of the coin but it's still a coin not head or tails (particle or wave) !!! it's a field ;-D pffff => i'm not the smartest person in the world but these scientists today dig too much of a rabbit hole themselves if you ask me :-D

[@DinarAndFriends]

He deserved neither.

[@zf164]

Jeffery Lubinski The concept of phasors alone introduced by Steinmetz was revolutionary in the world of electrical engineering. With it engineering can make use of Tesla’s AC technology

[@ishworshrestha3559]

Ok

[@mauroprovatos]

quantum mechanics 101 : "It's screwy"

[@volta2aire]

Maybe the wave-particle is actually a little screw. A photon can be circularly polarized just like screws which are like a helix. Then "it's screwy" becomes *quantum screw mechanics.*

[@dyanpanda7829]

de Broglie opened the field by making waves.

[@gekolvr0734]

call it a 'wavicle'!

[@godiamcrazydude]

gekolvr0734 underrated comment

[@vidarton]

Many use 'wavelet' actually.

[@michaeltebele3305]

Richard Feynman said it first

[@crackedemerald4930]

Waluigi would call it "wahvicle" Although "parve" might be more french-friendly

[@edwardlewis1963]

Is a tsunami a particle or a wave?

[@bxyify]

Pitty he didn't explain why it's so important that the electron is a wave at the atom. With this idea of de Broglie physic was able to understand why elements emit or absorb only certain wavelengths of light and also explain, why the electron is not crashing into the core. One might say, well it's in an orbit so it moves fast enough around the core not to crash in because electromagnetic pull and circular force equal out. The problem is just that moving charged particles, what electrons are, emitt radiation and that radiation equals an energy that would be taken from the electron and cause it crash into the proton. However with the de Brogli waves it becomes clear why this doesn't happen: The wave can only be located at certain energy levels defined by the frequency so that the wave connects on itself. And these discrete energy levels are also equal to the frequency an electron can emitt or absorb. Therefore this idea of de Broglie explains so much, why we see spectral lines, why lasers and LEDs work and why Planck had to assume that energy is always emitted in packets.

[@DanFrederiksen]

+bxyify does it really explain the lack of collapse though? I'm not intimately familiar with it, just wondering. It makes sense that the funky self resonance of the wave makes things discrete but why not a discrete step into collapse then? particularly given how extremely strong the electric force is. I suppose it does constantly collapse but that the energy left behind is of such nature as to be reabsorbed and reestablish the 'orbit' again. That the collapse energy is not on a form that will emit from a neutron? maybe

[@samknott5419]

+Dan Frederiksen They thought it would collapse because the electrons lost energy via electromagnetic waves since they were, in Bohr's model, accelerating charge particles. In a wave function, nothing is accelerating so no energy is lost by the electron and nothing collapses.

[@bxyify]

Dan Frederiksen It happens, that an electron "falls" into the nucleus, it's called "electron capturing" and releases a gamma photon and an electron-neutrino and happens in unstable cores that have a surplus of protons. The force in action here however is the weak interaction and not electromagnetic. Please keep also in mind, that the electron-wave modell is also just a modell that can explain discrete energy levels in emission and absorption. No model explains quantummechanic processes completed because it always matters how and what you observe. The shell-model with electrons as particles on orbits is still used in chemical models because it often can explain chemical reactions well enough but fails at explaining structures of molecules where the orbital configuration as amplitudes of the wave function matters again.

[@DanFrederiksen]

+bxyify, interesting. Are you a physicist?

[@DanFrederiksen]

+Sam Knott "In a wave function, nothing is accelerating so no energy is lost by the electron and nothing collapses." But isn't that really odd. 1) that an electron is a wave at all and 2) the oscillation doesn't count as accelerated charge. I'm not fully educated in QM so it might just be partially ignorance but it seems to me that this wave nature strongly demands and explanation which is a window to everything else. It has been suggested that gravity/mass inertial field has a wave aspect to it. An inherent frequency nature. Which could be used to affect it. I hunch that resonance in some fashion is super fundamental. That all interaction is of a funky frequency nature and resonance is the coupling aspect. That you can 'dial in' anything and affect everything at arbitrary distance. Including coupling with the earth's gravity and pay energy to it to rise up in the air. Correct me if I'm wrong but everything we see has a wave aspect? so it stands to reason that mass and space and time also have it in a form we have yet to identify. And I don't mean gravity waves like in ligo. Maybe there is a different type of oscillation we haven't yet identified. So much yet to discover.

[@DaveRoberts308]

“It’s screwy.” Now, I don’t feel so bad about my failure to wrap my head around this concept in my undergraduate physics classes.

[@XanderMarjoram]

I don't know if it's a coincidence or not, but after most physics lessons, I come home and there is a video with the exact topic we studied! We studied de Broglie waves yesterday :) Thanks for the video :)

[@shtomer]

haha, I just opened this video to know how to pronounce "de broglie" :)

[@JaySyzdek]

lol, "They roll away if they're particles!"

[@aretorta]

I already knew de Broglie's work and I find it wonderful, strange yet wonderful. I am ashamed of some physicists who have put this argument aside without even trying to analyze its fundamental idea.

[@OktayDogangun]

Q: Is light a wave or a particle? A: It is a field.

[@Mutantcy1992]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="295">4:55</a> He means antinodes, right?

[@G0ldkloud]

God damn superpositions....

[@ericl8743]

I wasn't expecting him to pronounce the name correctly. That's exciting to hear 😅

[@sixtysymbols]

@crabid thank you... Glad you chose to watch it!!!

[@meguinlia]

Wouldn't the way to look at how it is both a particle and a wave be explained by the fact that the electron is the viewed as a marble when time is removed/viewed in an instant where as it is behaving like a wave when viewed over a period of time?

[@casacara]

Imagine making your PHD paper so advanced they need Einstein to understand it

[@locutusdborg126]

Actually, quantum field theory explains it all, but science popularizers avoid QFT like the plague. All particles are perturbations of a field (fields are the most basic manifestation of reality) and travel in waves.

[@justinp2808]

They avoid it because they are not really sure what to say, I think, just as the practitoners of QFT don't know quite what to say either. Even if its true and everything is just a scalar field, which itself is just sort of a mathematical abstraction; there is no telling what it all actually means. Besides - gravity and dark matter/energy are sort of the elephants in the room when said practitioners try to talk about the most basic manifestation of reality with a straight face, not to mention the mass-gap and other tedious details.

[@locutusdborg126]

Justin P Very true.

[@jdmphys3040]

Locutus D'Borg But does QFT provide a physical interpretation of waves in its fields? For example, are the QFT waves the same as Schrodinger/Born's probability waves? What, then, would the fields be? Probability fields? Is a probability something that can actually have a field, or is this just a deeper mathematical way (to which we've attached the physical analog of a field) of calculating the probabilities associated with particles?

[@locutusdborg126]

jdmphys Physical waves, not probability waves. If you put iron filings on a paper and put a magnet under it, you will see real, not probability, waves of the filings.

[@jdmphys3040]

Locutus D'Borg A very satisfying answer. In the case of a magnetic field, the field has a very tangible, physical meaning ("it's a field of force"). My question is narrower than I originally stated: what does QFT say about the wave representation (the field perturbations) of a single electron that diffracts upon passing through a double slit? Physically, what more is this wave besides a set of probabilities about the electron (eg, probabilities about where the electron will materialize)? thanks, j

[@yusukeshinyama]

The professor's explanation is so screwy that it is refreshing. This is a video that makes a viewer daydream about their universe... Definitely one of the best sixty videos!

[@lilliankopp6415]

I don't think he likes it, and I think he blames de Broglie.

[@tusharpal5431]

Silicon behaves as a metal in some ways and as a non metal in other ways. We don't call silicon as both a metal and non metal at the same time. We call it a metalloid. Why don't we apply this aspect to the quantum world? This would make things less crazy

[@NoobLord98]

Because for quantum you use both wave and particle math, and these 2 maths are completely incompatible with one another, if you have the one you can per definition not have the other.

[@crackedemerald4930]

Electrons aren't waves or particles, it's just that it works best to describe them as particles or waves at different times

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Could quantum potential, electrical potential and gravitational potentialbe formed by one universal process? That explains why we all have a potential future in our everyday life that is always uncertain. This is done by making ‘time’ an emergent property energy ∆E slows the rate that time ∆t flows creating a future relative to the energy and momentum of the atoms of each object or life form. We have free will because the wave particle duality of light is acting like the bits or zeros and ones of a computer. This forms an interactive process continuously forming a blank canvas that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!

[@CristianGarcia]

Need a video about bohmian mechanics

[@thatchinaboi]

I was hoping this episode was going to talk about Bohmian Mechanics.

[@TheAncientScholar]

De Broglie's paper was also unique in that it was so well written in terms of getting to the point with a minimal amount of "fluff."

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Could the Wave function Ψ be explained if quantum mechanics represents the physics of ‘time’ as a physical process with the future coming into existence with each new light photon oscillation or vibration? We have a process of continuous energy exchange continuous creation continuously coming into existence. We are at the centre of our own ref-frame as an interactive process that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual! This is an invitation to see an artist theory on time!

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Could the wave particle duality of light represent a process of continuous energy exchange that we see and feel as the flow of time? Based on: 1. The quantum w-particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time itself with the future coming into existence photon by photon. 2. Is that quantum uncertainty ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w-function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event within our own ref-frame that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Louis De Broglie great idea that everything has wave-particle properties is one of the principles that Quantum Atom Theory is based upon. In this theory we are all made of particles but over a period of time we are waves in a process of continuous creation or change. A process that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual therefore Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is the same uncertainty we have with any future event.

[@Jimpozcan]

What does it even mean to say it's real or unreal?

[@lukapopovic5802]

jimpozcaner I was asking myself that same question...

[@TheAncientScholar]

@G3org3Master; unfortunately, it depends on the experiment. Some experiments indicate a wave, while others indicate a particle. The wavefunction is a different concept that relates to electrons in atoms. Most people believe the wavefunction has no "physical" meaning.

[@cobblebrick]

Screwy is my new favourite word

[@itsMinuteMaid]

Most videos on youtube are quite pointless (including most of mine), so I just wanted to thank you guys at SixtySymbols for making videos that actually make me think.

[@emilwibergh1014]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="174">2:54</a> and the "particle" starts rolling away, jiggling in a wave pattern. That's hysterical.

[@UnPuntoCircular]

And if they do, it is likely they do not understand it profoundly... Knowing how to integrate a function does not mean that you can invent calculus from scratch...

[@bobsmith-ov3kn]

I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this idea of particle/wave duality. It may not be intuitive, but it's not that complicated. It exhibits characteristic of both a wave and particle depending on what's being measured. The problem stems from the indirect methods we have/use to "see" these tiny things. No method of measuring something so small can do so directly, they are all somewhat indirect methods.

[@erikengheim1106]

While we might have perfect and accurate descriptions of the phenomenon and understand where and when it applies, that is quite different from being able to maintain some sort of mental picture of what subatomic particles are or look like. It is limited by human intuition which requires things to have well defined shape and color. Of course nothing really has a solid shape, color or any of the attributes we are used to when we think of objects.

[@BlackInMind5]

Einstein did'n called light particles "corpuscules". That was Newton.

[@99bits46]

einstein did call light particles for his explanation on Photoelectric effect

[@ShannonMacca]

"If you don't like it, blame de Broglie, because it's screwy, it's completely completely screwy." [This is amazing. Thanks!]

[@exxzxxe]

As always with these Sixty Symbol gentlemen-physicists- clear, concise and well said.

[@covalencedust2603]

One day we will understand why the mathematics behind quantum mechanics works while we don't understand what the equations mean. I hope that I will live to see that day.

[@aeroscience9834]

I think we already understand the mathematica

[@GoatzAreEpic]

Both particle and wave at the same time is actually a common misconception. It is impossible to be two different states at one instance in time. Instead we say it is in superposition. It could be either this or that, but never both states at the same time.

[@schmetterling4477]

This has nothing to do with superposition. Dirac pointed out around 1930 that wave-particle was a trivial false dichotomy fallacy. Quanta are neither waves or particles. They are small amounts of energy. It was up to Mott in 1929 to show how small amounts of energy can produce particle tracks which falsely suggest the existence of classical particles. The wave properties of ensembles of these quanta follows from relativity. The emptiness of space leads to Lie-group symmetries of spacetime and the general representation theory of these Lie-groups involves complex exponentials, which physically behave like waves in linear media.

[@TehKhronicler]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="355">5:55</a> "..you're losing all aspects of reality, you're just getting a mathematical formula." I would say that's just his opinion. Seems to me you're gaining aspects of a more fundamental reality that is just more difficult for us to grasp, but that isn't to say it is not real just because we haven't figured out how to conceptualize it yet. And why imply that 'just a mathematical formula' is somehow not based in reality? Not an attack on this guy, I love his talks, this statement and a few others in this video just seem to show a bit of the typical old stubborn scientists holding a high nose to things they don't quite understand yet.

[@1xtra299]

I think he's just trying to place emphasis on the fact that this idea was way ahead of its time, to the point that it is still not even fully understood today.

[@konfunable]

Or, simply Kopenhagen interpretation figured out mathematics right but completely failed at explaining what it actually is. Pilot wave is a theory which explanes all the double slit experiments completely easily without braking it into a bizare reality.

[@ryansmore]

But can't you get electron diffraction patterns and the double slit experiment shows the wave like properties of electrons? So it has some experimental proof in a macroscopic view.

[@nikhilnegi9446]

If we get all these calculations correct that doesn't mean that electron is a standing wave

[@bubble4770]

can you please tell me the channel of this video

[@williamtfinnegan1359]

I agree. After bringing up quantization he could have related that to the wavelength. Far too much repetition and a distinct lack of material beyond the 8th grade level. Need more beef and less bologna!

[@tripnoticstudio]

I absolutely love how this professor explains it.

[@mellyhong9434]

"If you don't like it, blame de Broglie" Best line evaaah 😂

[@anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858]

How is this similar/different from/to Larson's Reciprocal Systems Theory of Time & Space ? The very curiousity of things ....

[@larathomas9951]

Screwy................

[@crabid]

Wow! I almost didn't watch this since I had a lot of subscription videos and I didn't know what this is about, but this is the best video I have seen this year! That makes perfect sense to me (which probably [almost certainly] means I don't understand a lot of what it's based on ^-^ ) but no matter. What a fantastic concept, almost obvious really when you think about it.

[@conman2317]

my professor calls him brOgly, didn 't know it was debroy.

[@mrautistic2580]

we'll see a lot more of de Broglie's way of thinking

[@sock2828]

If the recent evidence for pilot wave theory starts leading somewhere then de Broglie might have the last laugh on this guy when he unequivocally states that hidden variables don't exist.

[@saeedbaig4249]

What's the evidence for pilot wave theory?

[@JPSMS100]

EM Drive, i think that's what he's talking about, it's possible,although not likely, that the reason why it supposedly works is because the pilot wave theory is right, but as usual in science, more research is needed

[@Ornitorrincoso]

Saeed Baig. the same for all other quantum theories. it's a model and it works just like the other 2 models. but you can't tell if one model is the real one (yet). Pilot wave it's much more simple, mundane, so for me it's more likely.

[@CiuccioeCorraz]

What recent evidence?

[@karanpunjabi599]

Blame Schrödinger for it because from my point of view de broglie was correct about the physical interpretation.

[@MicrosoftsourceCode]

@jawayetti Which waves are you talking about? What I am saying is light has properties that can be associated with water waves but has many properties of it's own. I just find it annoying when they tell you something that one already understand is very had to explain. IE I know the sky looks blue because of light refraction of water vapour in the atmosphere. But to hear these guys say understanding why the sky is blue is not easy sounds annoying and patronising if you already know answer.

[@MicrosoftsourceCode]

I find it annoying when physicist say it crazy to think of light as a wave. Well they are many different types of waves. The wave most physicist compare light with is the ripple wave in the ripple experiment where the water is contained. I don't think light has a container like a tank or sea bed. Water/ liquids do not have the same mass properties as light. A normal statement would read light has similar properties as waves produced by water.

[@HotelEarth]

My understanding is that electrons do not orbit the nucleus, but instead occupy all possible positions. Instead of a satellite orbiting the Earth you have an atmosphere wherein the electron occupies all possible positions around Earth at once. It is only when the electron is measured that is appears (briefly) to occupy one position.

[@2bsirius]

If you take requests from fans, how about more on Paul Dirac 's work on QED & Hamiltonian theory of constraints next? I'd like to know more about the problems with the translations into mental pictures...Simple enough for a non-expert to make out. Don't ask for much, do I?

[@surenpatwardhan4489]

I wouldn't blame de'broglie. I would rather blame the copenhagens for screwing it up.

[@schmetterling4477]

You have really poor guessing skills. You got it wrong twice in a row. ;-)

[@MikehMike01]

true, their interpretation is nonsense

[@schmetterling4477]

@@MikehMike01 And there is the attention seeking guy who doesn't understand physics. I must be on the internet. ;-)

[@ObjectsInMotion]

The theory isn't screwy, REALITY isn't screwy, it's our brains that are screwy. We can't cope with something being two things at once, just like we can't imagine the fourth dimension. There's NOTHING wrong with the explanation, just the explainee.

[@Khwartz]

There is NOTHING Screwy in de Broglie's Theory and there is NO difficulty to get a concept of what can be an object of both WAVES and PARTICLES, if// we don't forget to MAKE A PICTURE IN OUR MIND OF EACH SUB-CONCEPT ON WHICH IS BUILT HIS THEORY but sorry if You need for that to start with first grade school Concepts in Maths or else! ^_^

[@McPrfctday]

Adding this one to my 'My Favourite Scientist' playlist because it's basically about one man's idea. Ooh! conflicting loyalties! Mixing 60symbols with another series. Haha, it's all good :D

[@tahititoutou3802]

@ ReliveTheDream Louis de Broglie was French. I am also (though not from France, but French is the first language I learned as a child and I grew up in a French-speaking milieu). And I can certify you that it is not pronounced "debroye", but "De Brogglee". Actually, the "e" in "De" is pronounced like the "a" in "a" ship" ; and the "i" in Broglie is pronounced "ee" like the "i" in "Hawaii".

[@rabokarabekian409]

So the TOP COMMENTS conflated: the "price" of Nobel uses e.e. cummings'- style naming to the "end" of a coin. digging a rabbit hole (Alice's shovel?). I believe I'll just pay heed to informed and intelligent presenters, my droogies.

[@rabokarabekian409]

So the TOP COMMENTS conflated: the "price" of Nobel uses e.e. cummings'- style naming to the "end" of a coin. digging a rabbit hole (Alice's shovel?). I believe I'll just pay heed to informed and intelligent presenters, my droogies.

[@davidwilkie9551]

It's a particular probability wave-package, an integrated "chord" of Quantum Dualism and Operator Fields Modulation Mechanism of Spacetime probabilities in potential e-Pi-i interference positioning resonance, time duration timing possibilities.., when you look into it. Just about any picture you can imagine is a composite of mathematical abstractions, superimposed/mapped onto a self-defining modulation program of Time Timing-> Polar-Cartesian continuous creation connection, ..so it takes years of "Apprenticeship" and hands-on experience to form a personal "math-machine" Observable Universe that "makes sense" of shapes of in-form-ation, e-Pi-i 0-1-2D probability of coherent cohesion objectives in i-reflection pulsed resonances, ..of e-Pi-i interference positioning chord resonance, ie quanta/resonance sum-of-all-histories orbital, in resonance bonding, in orbital resonance imaging of multi-phase superimposed frequency interference patterning-> QM-TIMESPACE holographic positioning. A whole lot of synchronous circular logic that is the "absolutely" rational reason for supporting CCC. Thank you for providing Dr de Broglie's relevant history.

[@kixxy6019]

Tap the side of a round bucket of water because as objects free fall towards the greatest Energy Compression Antimatter is just the opposite phase, or Vector Imploding Energy Compression +1=0 now -1 de-compressing momentum forming the Mass and Acceleration equivalence principle F=ma. when one wave centre is moving relative to another wave centre they give rise to beats of interference caused by the Doppler shifting of the Inward +1=0 now -1 outward vortex waves due to relative motion. Which were identified in experiments as the oscillating de Broglie Wavelengths in Quantum theory y=h/ mv which also gives rise to the frequency increases, and thus Energy Compression/ Mass Volume increases (as E=hf=mc2) of Einstein's Special Relativity.

[@kixxy6019]

Tap the side of a round bucket of water because as objects free fall towards the greatest Energy Compression Antimatter is just the opposite phase, or Vector Imploding Energy Compression +1=0 now -1 de-compressing momentum forming the Mass and Acceleration equivalence principle F=ma. when one wave centre is moving relative to another wave centre they give rise to beats of interference caused by the Doppler shifting of the Inward +1=0 now -1 outward vortex waves due to relative motion. Which were identified in experiments as the oscillating de Broglie Wavelengths in Quantum theory y=h/ mv which also gives rise to the frequency increases, and thus Energy Compression/ Mass Volume increases (as E=hf=mc2) of Einstein's Special Relativity.

[@Zeno2Day]

So, @<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="182">3:02</a>… (regarding your discussion here) besides symbolic-figures, what language are physicists able to explain dB’s wave theory? btw, lv ur chnl.

[@LuisAldamiz]

I like De Brogies approach, and not just because he's my namesake: the wavefunction is the real thing, the particle is a phantom of old Newtonian mentality. You often hear quantum-mechanicists to diss Einstein's Relativity as "classical", while theirs is "non-classical" (so in their view better) but it's exactly the other way around: QM is sadly attached to the concept of "particle", point-like particle in fact, which is a very classical thing, extremely Newtonian, and they are also attached to other classical stuff like "forces" and linear time. And that's why real QM physicists sometimes, and only recently confess: yes, the wavefunction is the real thing, all the particle-based "orbital" model is just a rough approximation, something that lingers from the past and that confuses people. The wave is the real thing.

[@exxzxxe]

A question- you state, (in the Bohr picture) that the wave is not "real". What is your opinion of Bohm's pilot-wave theory, in which the wave "guides" the particle? I have seen both support and refutation of the DeBroglie-Bohm pilot-wave theory.

[@erictaylor5462]

I don't think these things are waves *OR* particles.They are like the V-22 Osprey. The V-22 is not an airplane, nor is it a helicopter. It is something else, a tilt-rotor aircraft. Sort of a hybrid of the two. Is a photon a particle or a wave? No, it is neither. It is a hybrid, which depending on circumstance and behave like a wave *OR* a particle. There is no definite word that I know of for what there things are so I suggest "weightickle" (way-tickle) for English, partly because it is a combination of "wave" and "particle" and partly because it is a funny sounding word.

[@cpanati]

To delve deeper, read the entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Bohmian Mechanics. De Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave Theory. Excellent article. Online.

[@davidwilkie9551]

If you were painting a picture, the grinding of the colors and refining the oils etc is necessary in principle because the precise reason for details of the elements of the picture is the relative size and positioning of information pixels. I've come across de Broglie and QM in the same couple of months at lectures, so the concepts were equally new and important. The expectation of perfectly constant motion in atomic clocks implies a unitary connection principle, and even if the calculation of Planck's Constant is an apparent "size" limitation, the necessity for guessing the universe is a compound of modulated Quantum Information is inevitable. (But I had been preoccupied with AM Radio-Crystal set construction and its effectiveness as an explanation of atomic-EM behaviour for many years beforehand. It seemed obvious that spacetime is timespace, modulation-demodulation, cause-effect) _____ De Broglie's concept of the wave-package, integrated at all potential QM-Timing frequencies, is completed and continuous in the projection-drawing of a Temporal Superposition-point Singularity, in which "wave-envelopes" are the superimposed time duration connection interval/vector, by relative frequency and amplitude due to Supuerspin, (which is another name for temporal connection, Eternity-now). "Interference", superposition, implies, in potential, (radial-linear scalar), hyper, harmonic, and hypo relative frequency generation of all phenomena transverse to here-now, a holographic projection-drawing of a real volumetric integration image in perspective positioning. The expectations of perceived experience prejudice an Observer to see a wave-particle paradox instead of the Actuality. A merging of awareness with constant sensation in the here-now experience is suggested by "thoughtless", without expectations, Meditation that sometimes "makes the connection", of coherent-interference, and the principle rationale connecting all Information being pivotal and symmetrical/reciprocal, with formulaic Actuality.., otherwise known as "thinking about it".

[@heaven4247]

How about it's a particle moving grooving like a Wave, Ya"Baby.hahaha I got News for you, it moves like a Cloud , your the lightning. Go man.

[@mohamed.s.elnaschie1697]

محاضرة العالم المصرى الكبير الاستاذ محمد النشائى بامريكا The Universe as a Golden Supercomputer Scorpion300100 2.4K views 5 months ago <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="90">1:30</a>:17 الدكتور محمد النشائى فى قناة الحافظ Scorpion300100 247 views 5 years ago <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="2628">43:48</a> مباشر من مصر د . محمد النشائي Nimo shark 863 views 2 years ago <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="2051">34:11</a> الدكتور محمد النشائى فى برنامج فى حب مصر على القناة الاولى بتاريخ 14-07-2013 Scorpion300100 244 views 4 years ago <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="328">5:28</a> Mohamed El Naschie at home in Surrey elnaschie 1.9K views 7 years ago <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="305">5:05</a> E=mc² is wrong? - Sixty Symbols Sixty Symbols 717K views 7 years ago Continue watching <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="73">1:13</a>:28 محاضرة العالم المصرى الكبير الاستاذ محمد النشائى بامريكا The Universe as a Golden Supercomputer Scorpion300100 2.4K views 5 months ago <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="90">1:30</a>:17 الدكتور محمد النشائى فى قناة الحافظ Scorpion300100 247 views 5 years ago <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="2628">43:48</a> مباشر من مصر د . محمد النشائي Nimo shark 863 views 2 years ago <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="2051">34:11</a> الدكتور محمد النشائى فى برنامج فى حب مصر على القناة الاولى بتاريخ 14-07-2013 Scorpion300100 244 views 4 years ago <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="3007">50:07</a> العالم المصري محمد النشائي في نقطة فاصلة مع ريهام منيب ريهام منيب 101 views 1 year ago

[@theRealPlaidRabbit]

So, quantum mechanics can calculate the probability function of Katy Perry switching back into Lady G, and then switching back. The frequency is calculated from the mass, but the angular momentum is a bit tricky.

[@planmet]

Is it not better to envisage an electron (say in hydrogen) travelling in a helical spiral around a proton which is also travelling in a helical spiral but of a smaller radius? The directions of travel would be the same for both but their 'threads' would be opposite. By travelling in their seperate helical tori it would explain why electrons don't neutralise with protons. Bohr's shells would then consist of successive rings of electrons at different energy levels. The helical nature would also be wave-like. And plasma would occur when these helical rings break up into linear photons after energy levels are increased..

[@JohnJackson-mn4ts]

I obviously don't understand quantum mechanics because I don't find the duality at all strange.

[@DeathBringer769]

It's funny when some people feel like they need to force something to only be one thing OR only another different thing, when that's often just a false dichotomy... The universe doesn't care what we think "makes sense" after all. It just works how it works, as "weird" as it make strike some of us, as much as some of us want to try to force it to fix into arbitrarily boxes or categories of "this" or "that", the universe carries on regardless doing what it's doing ;)

[@DerekFolan]

It simple enough. Its rippling. Pilot wave theory. Just think of the wave being a frequency that the particle has. Light has layers. A particles frequency ripples/reflects to leave light with a top layer frequency. For example light ripples on contact with many things into different spectrums, like gravity waves, As light travels through space it ripples on gravity waves. The light itself is not the wave, The wave is gravity and the light is interacting with the gravity wave. Light then hits the ozone, It ripples blue, light hits plants it ripples green - Green is the top layer, light hits the ocean it ripples microwave, Water is actually clear & not blue, The sky above is blue and there are gaps between H20 so the water appears blue for that reasons the deeper the ocean gets or grey depending on sky colour, Its just like mixing colors. Study the electro magnetic spectrum table. Pilot wave theory can explain the world in a deterministic way, where as CERN maths people have man made a many worlds theory and are trying to fit our world into that.

[@terryrogers6232]

...being a wave doesn't make sense...being a wave and a particle doesn't make sense... It might depend, the psychological part of it, on how you got started. I began as a licensed radio technician and advanced into collegiate study of electrical engineering. Antennas I understood...classically...and so it did not seem strange that we would use wave equations for Schrodinger's atom when I went to the physics program. Spherical harmonics did not seem strange as they were in electric fields in dielectrics and antennas. Point like particles that could travel in lobed waveforms seemed strange because then I would need to imagine them speeding up and slowing down or moving closer and farther away or both. One professor said orbitals were where it didn't matter if the electron were a wave or particle...but I could not think of a particle dancing around like so. I had to get a real job so I went back to electrical engineering but then I remembered that a "photon was a photon no matter how small" (Horton's rule :-) ) ...in energy and large in space. So this antenna I had once energized must be emitting bejillions of coherent photons, all entangled. In the antenna itself, bejillions of electrons were distributed according to the current wavefunction and coupled to the 'stationary' near electrical field. One can arrange said antenna in a loop (coil) so that at large distances, it hardly radiates at all and maybe make it super conducting. If we shrink that system down, does it ever change character or is it already 'quantum' ...pilot wave quantum I guess.

[@Julia-rq7uj]

In every quantum mechanics lecture: This phenomena was discovered by xxxxx which won him the Nobel Prize in 19xx.

[@volta2aire]

Maybe the wave-particle is actually a little screw. A photon can be circularly polarized just like screws which are like a helix. Then "it's screwy" becomes *quantum screw mechanics.*

[@PaulMarostica]

I offer my deep respect to all those, like Professor Roger Bowley here, who admit not understanding a professionally used physics theory. Quantum theory and relativity theory and their various derivative theories are each combinations of useful mathematics with physically illogical fundamental assumptions. Because of this, it is not possible to logically understand these theories. My new, unifying physics theory, "matter theory", will permanently replace all professionally used physics theories to become the only theory. Its simple, fundamental assumptions logically explain what must be physically occurring, to eliminate almost all the fundamental problems remaining in physics theory. And because matter theory is both simple and logical, anyone can understand it. You can find my videos advertising my theory using 3 search keywords: matter theory marostica.

[@david_porthouse]

I am interested in the question of how to incorporate a random number generator into a computer simulation of quantum mechanics, which I feel is asking the obvious. We know that the Schroedinger equation is a wave equation - just look at any textbook. It also looks like a diffusion equation with an imaginary diffusion coefficient, so we should be thinking about tachyonic Brownian motion. There's enough space in the Minkowski formalism to have tachyonic Brownian motion which is strictly orthogonal to the wavelike behaviour, which is an oscillation in the other way to travel faster than light which is capable of destructive interference. If two or more detectors are trying to detect our entity, then the TBM means a broken symmetry like the broken symmetry which gives rise to the Von Karman vortex street, which we can show by computer simulation. We can at least imagine how something can be both a wave and a particle, but turning the idea into a working computer simulation won't be easy. In the case of photons, we need to model the means of detecting them.

[@Holobrine]

But the De Broglie-Bohm theorem throws out the duality thing out entirely. Particles aren't waves, they make waves in a field and then interact with the waves they just made. There's a beautiful video by Veritasium explaining it.

[@tmk5]

Considering electron has both particle and wave properties is much crazy idea than thinking of light has also particle properties. I don't know why scienctists considered wave property more hard to perceive. Considering electron or other subatomic particles as waves would solve many difficulties of Quantum physics.

[@7Somerset]

I can understand(kind of) that a photon has wave particle duality but for an electron which has mass and therefore travels slower than light to behave that way as well is insanity. I take it protons and neutrons have wave particle duality as well?

[@wedmunds]

Apparently so, and even molecules as large as 700 amu have been tested to behave like waves. I pulled this off of wikipedia because I know nothing about interferometry.

[@geppettocollodi8945]

What I like to know, assuming is a question it make sense. How long is a photon? Since is a wave how many wavelengths does it contains? How long does it last? A particle hit a target instantly but a wave is absorbed. A constant wave is continuously absorbed a pulsed wave has a definite duration. ??????

[@creatorsremose]

He sounds like a terrible teacher. PBS Spacetime explained this so elegantly and beautifully.

[@ProfessorEGadd]

Firstly, metals have like, loads of electrons. Like loads and loads, really. The second point is that electrons are charged. Usually the photoelectric effect is demonstrated with a negatively charged sample, i.e. one with an excess of electrons, so the the electrons that are released are sent far from the surface. Related to the charge is that once a metal loses electrons it is positively charged so will attract more electrons, either one's just released or from the rest of the environment.

[@PTNLemay]

When a photon strikes a surface (say metal) it pushes an electron out. That's the usual example given when introducing photon particle/wave duality. What I don't understand is how do those electrons get back into the metal? I get that a metal block is going to have a lot of electrons sitting in it, but if you leave a big block of metal out in the sun all day (getting bombarded by countless photons) all it does is get hot... it never actually runs out of electrons. So how does it work?

[@BRAIDERMAN]

De Broglie's thesis didn't just postulate the existence of 'matter waves' for an electron - but to all matter objects with a velocity or momentum, including baseballs and footballs. When you look at the equation for the corresponding wavelengths of a baseball travelling at 40 mph, it is vanishingly small ( frequency is large). Thus the correspondence of similarity between matter and energy in E=mc2

[@BRAIDERMAN]

"It's screwy" - We, as human beings only have understandings based on (what Richard Dawkins calls ) our 'middle world' view. We don't have English words or understandings of what may be happening in the 'small world' of the quantum, or the 'large world' of General Relativity. If we are trying to imagine an electron, all we can do is transfer our knowledge of the middle world to try to explain it - and it doesn't always work ! We shouldn't be so surprised about that !

[@aikimark1955]

I think of fundamental particles, in analogy, as small bits of matter that have some base frequency. The space the particle inhabits includes the effect of the frequency on the surrounding space. If the particle is an electron and gains energy, the resulting increase in the size of the surrounding wave pushes the particle into a higher (quantum) orbit. Conversely, lower energy reduces the surrounding wave envelope and lowers the orbit. Sometimes a tuning fork/speaker experiment helps students.