I was wrong about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

[@andrewtaylor3152]

This is literally the best, clearest explanation of Heisenberg Uncertainty I've ever seen. Too often, the explanation is couched in attempts to dramatize the "weirdness" and counterintuitivity, really leaning into a sense that this is difficult to understand. You dispense with all that, and walk the viewer through how the reality differs from our intuition, but presenting it in a way that makes the math and the physics seem very straightforward. Well done, and thank you.

[@cyclonasaurusrex1525]

Either you explained that incredibly well, or I’ve recently gotten a whole lot smarter than I was.

[@dylan_curious]

Your explanation about delta x and delta p being spreads rather than uncertainties really helped me grasp the principle better.

[@1emiliobering]

But why This doesn't make any sense What is spread? The object would then be in a state in which it is larger than it could be? spread in this case is referring to a superposition Superpositions do not exist locally

[@robinbrowne5419]

It seems that there are many ways to look at it and to understand it. As long as they follow the basic rule dX dP > Hbar then they can be deemed to be correct.

[@1emiliobering]

@@robinbrowne5419 It's not okay The explanation ignores what superposition means.

[@erikziak1249]

Paused at 8:15. I am not that much into "measurement collapse". Up until this point in the video, I nodded at the common misconception about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but exactly at 8:15 I had to pause and think about what you just said. Around 12:00 about collapsing a state. I would not be so sure about the collapse. My take: It does not collapse the state, it makes you and the electron state "entangled" (not literally by the way particles are). The result remains the same, but this is the reasoning according to in my understanding. I fully accept that I might be wrong, but we see once again, this is about the interpretation of QM. We do not argue about what happened, only about how we interpret it. 🙂

[@Heulerado]

Oooh, one about my area! I've written a paper based on this stuff, and I think this is a great video, zero complaints on the accuracy of the information. If you want to dig deeper and completely exhaust the topic, I recommend Busch, Heinoen, and Lahti's 2006 paper "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle". It uses the operational formalism of quantum mechanics, which may be unfamiliar, but is capable of naturally and rigorously representing and disentangling all these versions of "the uncertainty principle". In the paper, they distinguish 3 versions of the principle, and they quantify the uncertainties for each of them. The measurement disturbance uncertainty relation talked about in the video is statement (C) in the paper. I do have one (1) complaint: The name is Ozawa, not Ozama.

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

That’s so cool! Thank you for the hat tip, I’ll check out that paper! What’s your paper on the topic? Sorry about messing up Ozawa’s name!

[@Heulerado]

​@@LookingGlassUniverse Our paper (I said mine, but of course I had help from a professor) is about the uncertainty principle when you consider that the observer is also a quantum system, i.e. when we have a quantum reference frame. Spoiler alert: The uncertainty bounds double! You can freely transfer uncertainty between system and observer: A sharp picture of a blurry cat is equal to a blurry picture of a sharp cat. But we also use operational QM and it's a short paper (4 pages), so you may want to read the older one first, as we don't have much space for the introduction. The paper is Riera, Loveridge 2024. It's only on arxiv so far, but it's being reviewed for publication in PRA.

[@philochristos]

This distinction between ontology and epistemology in quantum physics sure has lead to a lot of confusion.

[@erikziak1249]

100% agree.

[@simongross3122]

Confusion should be called Obfuscology. Not for any reason other than it rhymes better.

[@ghanshamchandel1854]

Here's how I make sense of the measurement. Every interaction of a particle (or group of particles) with the environment is a "measurement". Some interactions (colliding with a detector screen, getting deflected by magnets, ...) shrink the wavefunction in a particular base (position, momentum, angular momentum, ...) and we call it a measurement. The more the sharp shrinking, better is the measurement.

[@blueckaym]

3:42 "... in-fact the electron is spread out, so it's in all of these places" That's the way I understood it too, despite the constant repeat that the electron is a point-like particle. Yes, when you measure it, it makes a point on a screen (or a sensor), but that's the location of the measurement interaction, which doesn't have to be what the electron is.

[@1emiliobering]

This doesn't make any sense

[@1emiliobering]

What does spread mean? Pay close attention she didn't say Scattered she said spread.

[@blueckaym]

@@1emiliobering , scattered is your word

[@1emiliobering]

@@blueckaym yes it is

[@1emiliobering]

@@blueckaym What does spread mean?

[@furtherback6131]

This woman has been my QP goddess for over ten years. Amazing to have been there from the start and be so privileged as to follow her in her evolutionary trajectory.

[@DoobooDomo]

I am having trouble finding primary sources, but the first mathematical derivation of uncertainty I saw was from my classical wave mechanics class (IIRC you can also derive the momentum of a photon without relativity or quantum). The intuition was something like: the precision to which you can identify a frequency depends on how many wavelengths you've measured. I didn't go deeper into physics, but my takeaway was that waves were strange enough even without quantum!

[@brothermine2292]

In Heisenberg's draft version of the paper in which he first described the Uncertainty Principle, he described it as the disturbance of the state caused by the measurement. But when he showed the draft version to Neils Bohr, Bohr badgered him into revising the paper to make the much bolder claim that the uncertainty relation is a fundamental property of the state regardless of whether the state was measured.

[@robinbrowne5419]

Thanks for this. I have watched about 20 videos about the Heisenberg uncertainty principal in particular and about 50 videos about quantum mechanics in general. Each time I watch one I gain a bit more of an understanding. That is all I can say, except Thanks for posting them and Merry Christmas 🎄.

[@GeoffryGifari]

Hmmm if the framework is measurement collapse and there is an uncertainty relation between measurement error and disturbance, does that mean that in reality, the value of the quantity we measure "collapses" into a range, instead of collapsing to one exact number?

[@epajarjestys9981]

I would think so. If you subscribe to the notion that the wave function is ultimately real then yes (which also seems to be the notion that Ms. LookingGlassUniverse subscribes to at least for the sake of explanation).

[@jack.d7873]

Looking for help. @3:00 where an electrons spread is communicated. Is it true then that if a single electron is shot through the two slits, it becomes a spread out wave, represented by the probability graph?

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

That’s right! Generally states tend to spread out over time, with a few exceptions. Electrons going through the double slits will certainly spread out :)

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

If you want to learn Quantum Mechanics with me, the 4 week course starts the week of January 6th! I just finished teaching this course to my first group of students, and it was a blast :) The course is designed for people of all levels of mathematical background, so everyone is welcome. But just so you know, there will be homework 📝🍎 looking-glass-universe.teachable.com/p/quantum-mechanics-fundamentals1 There’s some issue with the site (there was earlier) please email at [e-mail] and I'll sort it out!

[@nias2631]

I'll sign up, caught a typo in the landing page blurb "I'll guid you through..."

[@phasespace4700]

Unable to complete checkout for this course!

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

@@nias2631 Thank you!

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

@@phasespace4700 I'm so sorry! I've tried to find out what the bug was and couldn't figure it out. Would you mind emailing me? I think I can add you in another way. My email is looking.glass.universe@ gmail

[@blueckaym]

That's very good video! It's really good to clarify the "spread in position" thing, as it's very often misinterpreted (as QM usually is :D). Now I'm thinking what other ways the "spread of momentum" could be interpreted (and which is the correct one). PS. However don't forget that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is based on the Fourier Transforms (admittedly one of the most powerful pieces of math we have discovered!), and the uncertainty principle comes from the math describing it, which might or might not be the nature of the subject (the electron in this case). In practical terms it's ok to consider the subject identical to our description model, though if you're interested in really understanding it and note that ALL of our models are simplifications, you should remember that even our best descriptions very rarely ARE the subject they're describing, at best they give us precise view on some aspect of the subject. I know this is rather philosophical argument, but my point is - keep your mind open, because you might discover another better way to interpret something that you thought you knew already! (it doesn't have to replace your previous understanding, but to complement it)

[@NyteRazor]

9:27 Hope you update us whenever there's an explanation why there's a collapse when measuring an electron's state.

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

I was thinking about doing a video on my favourite theory: decoherence

[@sebastiandierks7919]

@@LookingGlassUniverse Decoherence only explains how to go from a superposition of base states (so-called pure state, what you've exclusively talked about so far in this series), described by a single wave function that is capable to interfere with itself, to a mixed state, i.e. a probabilitic mix of base states, where the classical probabilities quantify our ignorance (analogous to the use of probabilities in statistical mechanics). Decoherence can not explain how to then go from the mixed state to a pure base state that is observed in a measurement. pure superposition state -----decoherence----> mixed state ------measurement collapse------> pure base state (corresponding to the measurement result) How, why (and even if, according to the Many-Worlds interpretation) the wave function collapses is currently not understood, it is just a law of nature and a postulate in the standard (Copenhagen) description of quantum mechanics. If you'd find out what exactly a measurement is (amongst the set of all interactions) and how the collapses happens, you would solve one of the biggest mysteries in the foundations of physics and be guaranteed a Nobel prize. All that said, I would still love a video on decoherence (just not as a means to explain wave function collapse).

[@Knowledge_Seeker64]

So in other words, measurement collapse of a spread creates a radically smaller spread as opposed to reducing the spread to a single value?

[@lonestarr1490]

As if the universe knows exactly how much we know and always utilizes all the wiggle room that remains.

[@erikziak1249]

@@lonestarr1490 "The universe" could not care less about us, if it had the ability to "care".

[@jokeyxero]

Can you do a video on all the ways we experimentally measure the position of electrons? You walked through one way in a double-slit video and it was very eye-opening to the reality of why we get the results we do.

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

Great idea! I’m going to see if I can do one of these experiments

[@wamique]

Very less people are making sense in Quantum World. You happen to be one of them. I am tired of watching videos that start with imaginary Qbit that’s being compared to Binary Bit. Whole idea doesn’t take us anywhere because we’re just not talking about the real nature.

[@Richardincancale]

I recall a whole lecture on the Open University in the UK back in the 1970s explaining the uncertainty principle entirely as perturbations during to the measurement, rather than focusing on superposition. Must have set back a generation of students!

[@Yumy607]

Is it correct then to say as the PDF of either the momentum or position approaches a pulse (near 100% accuracy, then the other property’s PDF will approach a uniform distribution? What isn’t clear to me is where the upper/lower bounds are defined as well unless we know something about the system beforehand?

[@Heulerado]

If you want to be more quantitative, the wavefunction (whose absolute square is the PDF) of position is the Fourier transform of the wavefunction of momentum, and vice versa. If you understand what this means (3blue1brown has some amazing videos on Fourier transforms), you will see that yes, a sharp peak in a function will be reflected as an everywhere-oscillating sin + i*cos wave, which if you absolute-square is a uniform distribution. With this in mind, to answer your other questions, the bounds can be whatever you want them to be, or not be there at all, but we should know the state (i.e. the wavefunction) of the system beforehand, otherwise we are doing probability theory, not quantum mechanics. Which you have to do in the real world, but that's besides the point.

[@epajarjestys9981]

@@Heulerado > whose square is the PDF *absolute square

[@Heulerado]

@@epajarjestys9981 Yep, thanks, edited now

[@marsovac]

My understanding is that for any kind of measurement we need at least two moments in time, and since the electron is a vibration in the electron field, we will be measuring two different values every time

[@cademosley4886]

If you measure a quantum state very quickly after already measuring it a first time, then the wave function will collapse again into (almost) the same state if it's done quickly enough, and if you keep measuring it over & over very quickly, you will freeze the system into that state. It's called the Quantum Zeno Effect, and it's something they've really discovered happening.

[@GRosa]

You said/wrote *Ozama, but it's actually Ozawa, Masanao Ozawa.

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

Oh sorry! Thanks for the correction. And here's the paper if anyone wants- it's brilliant: arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0207121

[@MassimoAngotzi]

That’s because also Osama in 2003 was in a superposition of States. Emirates? Afghanistan? 😁

[@sphinxwar8529]

Okay I have no clue what it is but today the universe just decided to reward me with a scientific feast. First AlphaPhoenix posts a video about how he built a 9 BILLION FPS camera and recorded light travelling in his room, and now this, the actual best explanation for HUP. What's next? A KZbinr will post a video "I discovered life on Jupiter's moons"? Thanks a lot for these, it's very obvious that you wanted to make your content easy to digest and you actually care about people understanding the concepts you're presenting. Fantastic video.

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

AlphaPhoenix uploading is always a good day :) Thank you for your kind comment!

[@2nd_foundation]

Mithuna, are you aware of the Fisher's information theory? , you could derive the uncertainty principle from the Cramer Rao lower bond. Great videos thanks!

[@peterbonucci9661]

That's what I thought. I think version 2 is about how much information you can get out of a measurement.

[@alexh3601]

What would happen if you were to rapidly measure the position and momentum back and forth? Would you get a random walk?

[@cademosley4886]

h-bar/2 is still very small. Think of the example of putting a cloud chamber in a magnetic field and waiting for a charged particle to fly through it. You will see a curved path created that lets you see (or measure) both the particle's position (in the chamber at a specific time) and momentum (amount of curvature at any point), and you can see it's not a random walk but a very clear curved line. It still respects Heisenberg Uncertainty because the bubble path is just fuzzy enough, if you zoomed in a lot, there's be a little uncertainty what the exact position and curvature is, but you'd still have to zoom in quite a bit to see that uncertainty fuzziness since h-bar/2 is still quite small.

[@HoD999x]

who came up with the term superposition? isn't it much more accurate to think of particles as an "effect" that may occur with a given probability at any given point in space? like an army of randomly failing traps?

[@lonestarr1490]

But a particle really does not have a definitive location in space we just don't know beyond a certain range of probability. The notion of location itself is not well-defined beyond a probability distribution. At least that's how I understand it.

[@javiej]

Superposition is not equivalent to classical probability functions. Read about the double slit experiment, even for a single particle the wave function takes both possible paths at the same time, then interfering (both probability waves) with each other, finally collapsing into a single value when (and only if) you take a measurement. If this does not sound weird enough, think that you can now destroy the information obtained by the measurement and then the superposition (it's interference pattern) returns, like if you had never made the measurement. So no, Superposition is not just a probability function.

[@mrfinesse]

Thanks.. Since we are taking about momentum, Are both the values of Velocity and Mass spread out. If an electron has a fixed mass, then why not use del-x times del-velocity (why momentum)? Or is this to get the units right (which does not seem correct to me)?

[@EngRMP]

I can't get over how similar this sounds to time domain vs frequency domain in signal processing (Fourier Transforms). The finer the resolution in time (for example, approaching an impulse), the wider bandwidth in frequency domain is required to represent the finer resolution. I wonder... are we using the wrong picture to describe the quantum view of electrons (particles). Are electrons really a superposition of frequencies? And, then, trying to understand where in space the superposition of waves are all in phase (making like a breaking wave in a water analogy... the apparent instantaneous position of the electron), requires taking into account a wider bandwidth. If you only need a coarse idea of where the electron is, then less bandwidth is required. Am I way off course here???? Are the terms "position" and "momentum" really time domain and frequency domain representations of sinusoidal views of electrons (particles)????

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

Spot on! This is exactly what's going on under the hood here- if you had a state with exactly one momentum it would look like a pure frequency signal. So swapping from the position to the momentum looks like a fourier transform

[@winstongludovatz111]

In standard QM a particle never has both a position and a momentum at the same time. Before you measure either, it has neither. When you measure the position, there is no momentum to be disturbed. My point is: the mathematics is clear and fairly simple but the intuitive interpretation is futile and brings in facets that are not really there. You cannot talk about a single particle here, where this relation is meaningless. It is meaningful only for large samples of "identical" particles.

[@epajarjestys9981]

You are an excellent teacher.

[@diarmuidkeane1]

wow ! so combining both we get that ... ( Δ(x) + ε(x) )( Δ(p) + η(p) ) >= h-bar - How neat!

[@MikeJoneswghs]

Excellent explanation. Does an electron always act in a state of superposition, that is it is always 'spread out' no matter how precise the measuring scale that is used?

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

Yup, exactly! It's not possible for any quantum objects to be exactly in one spot ever

[@simongross3122]

@@LookingGlassUniverse If it were in one spot with perfect accuracy, then delta-x would be zero and (delta-x)(delta-p) would be zero which is less than h-bar. So exact positions or exact momenta are forbidden. This sounds like something fundamental in nature rather than just measurement.

[@Vidar2032]

What if you measure the electrons position several times at a given frequency, would it then be possible to find both its positions AND its momentum?

[@TheTinyDiamond]

1 minute ago is the earliest I’ve ever been to a video lol

[@neobaud513]

One nuance that I would like to correct is when you said that the electron is sort of spread out. I don't think it is spread out exactly. I think this is how Erwin Schrödinger imagined it but the particle is in this weird superposition and it is the probability amplitude that is spread out. So I think the wave function of an electron is better described as a probability wave and the electron is truly somewhere in there but the exact place is unknowable. I don't know what do you think?

[@johnfitzgerald8879]

What if I impart a known momentum on the electron then measure it's position?

[@user-rm2qj2jh4l]

Very informative! Such a great explanation, thank you!

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Its like 1st position newton tool inside 2nd einstein environment 3rd hiesenbergs approach tiny package of energy = photon perfect alignment. Hamiltonian occelating chart with idealized time side veiw many see in text book getting stopped in position . Atleast the old 70 & 80s text book in high school used it. Any more less measure it deform or mystifys But the language starts as complexity then turn uncertainty then probable and chaos as everyone's posterity flipped over the century

[@timvw01]

How do we know there is a spread on the momentum?

[@sebastiandierks7919]

10:51 it's an eta, not a nu

[@phasespace4700]

It won;t let me sign up! 🙁

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

Does this work by any chance? looking-glass-universe.teachable.com/purchase?product_id=6018877

[@phasespace4700]

@@LookingGlassUniverse *This product is not available. Contact the school owner for more information.*

[@arnesaknussemm2427]

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is about the wave nature of particles.

[@animalfort3183]

i just tried signing up but the link says its unavailable :-[

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

I'm so sorry! I will try figure this out!

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

Does this work by any chance? looking-glass-universe.teachable.com/purchase?product_id=6018877

[@animalfort3183]

@@LookingGlassUniverse no

[@entertainme121]

Hello dear, Not a physicist (feel free to automatically dismiss anything I now say). Like many theories and principles in physics, the students who try to understand the work of those who have gone prior, often, it seems; over complicate and thus miss the foundational insight. The foundational insight for the uncertainty principle is really rather simple, but you're too much of an "adult" to realise. Here it is: Momentum, to be calculated, requires a minimum of TWO positions. A start and end. You can only ever calculate, at best, the *AVERAGE* momentum, between these two positions. If you keep increasing the resolution, you will eventually (after infinity) merge the two positions, into one. One position, is a point. You cannot infer any information about speed or momentum from a single point. Ever. Period. Yes, yes, I know we're talking about wave functions here yada yada yada, the principle remains. You can never ever EVER calculate speed using only one point. It always requires a minimum of two. As soon as you calculate a definitive position/point, you forfeit all info on speed. And the opposite, likewise. To make an analogy even simpler: Consider a road trip from one city to another. You can record your departure and arrival time, and calculate a very accurate speed for the entire trip, but not know any info about where you are on that trip. On the other hand, you can calculate where you are on that trip, but not know your overall speed (you could be stuck in traffic at 10km/hr at one point and a while later on a motorway doing 120km/hr). You know your position, but your overall speed (of 65km/hr, let's say) is way off. Be a child, again. Bright eyed and open to believing ANYTHING.

[@erikziak1249]

This comment needs more likes. I could give only one.

[@HyperFocusMarshmallow]

What you’re describing is a very different issue. In classical physics (that is not quantum mechanics) particle motion can be thought of in terms of a curve in a diagram with space and time on the axes. The position at a certain time would be the point of space the curve is at at that time. The velocity would just be the derivative, the slope of the curve, at that point. Or course there is more to it, the curves obey certain differential equations like newtons laws etc. But the point is that in that framework position and momentum are perfectly well defined. Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation says something quite different. The video hints at what. A textbook on quantum mechanics would give more details. But the crux of the difference is something like this. In classical physics, the state is represented by position and momentum and the dynamics is described in terms of those. In quantum mechanics the state is represented by a wavefunction. The dynamics is described in terms of that wave function. Wave functions can in turn be decomposed in different ways of certain special simple states. There are many ways of decomposing a wavefunction into components. One kind of simple states that can be imagined is a wave function is localized at a point. One can imagine a wave function localized at one point. Or a different point or any point really. One way to form more general wave functions would be to make weighted sums of such functions with certain rules. There is another special kind of state. It’s wave functions that might be called traveling waves. It’s a kind of wavefunction that looks the same (up to some mathematical details) if we’d imagine shifting it over by a little bit. One could also take a collection of such states and make a weighted sum to form more general wavefunctions. It turns out that if we want to describe any wave function it can in standard cases be enough to only use a sum of localized states. And it can also be enough to only use a sum of states that are self similar under translation. So if we have a general wavefunction, we can make the first kind decomposition and compute weights of the weighted sum. And we can also do the other kind of decomposition and compute weights of the weighted sum. The first kind of states is called the position eigenstates. The second kind of states is called the momentum eigenstates. There are mathematical theorems that relate the two representations. They are related by something called Fourier-transforms. One can decompose a position eigenstate in terms of momentum eigenstates. Then you need infinitely many of them. And vice versa. For wave functions that are more like a bell shaped distribution in the position representation you will also get a bell shaped distribution in the momentum representation. But the representations are functions so we can compute spreads. Similar to how we compute standard deviation in statistics. It is then possible to prove that the spread in one of the representations put constraints on the spread of the other representation. It is a fact about wavefunctions that there are no wavefunctions one could construct that have arbitrarily low spread in both representations. Such results can be proved as mathematical theorems. Once you state what a wave functions is and what you mean by these kinds of representations. There are of course further physics statements. Like how wavefunctions relate to the classical picture. Clearly the two descriptions of physics are different. Since classical physics does not have this uncertainty relation. But that’s all for this description.

[@entertainme121]

@@HyperFocusMarshmallow Thanks for the attempted explanation. You do understand that no one on earth, literally no one, past or present, understands quantum physics? I read carefully and slowly your entire comment, and felt that you are well educated (only last night did I re-begin trying to understand the Fourier system). Then I read the last line when you said "Since classical physics does not have this uncertainty relation." and realized, you simply don't get it. Your not so much educated, as you are "adultized". Classical physics ABSOLUTELY has this uncertainty relation. Don't you see? Don't you get it? It is _impossible_ to know the exact speed OR the exact location simultaneously - Of anything! To calculate speed, you must have two points. The speed you calculate is ALWAYS the average speed between those two points. Yes, yes, you can plot a graph and infer from the curve what looks like an "exact" speed. It's not. It's the average speed between two plotted points on the curve. If you can't grasp this fundamental concept, I fear your mind has been educated to death.

[@Heulerado]

I don't think this checks out. You absolutely _can_ measure momentum/speed using only one measurement: Check how big of a hole it leaves after crashing it into a wall (meaning, measure how much force it takes to stop it from moving). The position is then also clear: In the hole. We can make all sorts of analogies, but we can construct analogies for anything, even wrong things. We must be careful to pick the ones that reflect what we're trying to simplify, in this case the Fourier relationship between position and momentum. I like to think of it as measuring the "radius" and the "height" of a random blob (we measure radius from the center of mass, and height by dropping the blob on the floor into its most stable position). Spherical blobs don't have a well-defined height, and flat blobs don't have a well-defined radius.

[@HyperFocusMarshmallow]

Measuring velocity is a different thing from velocity being defined. In classical physics, velocity is well defined. If our world worked like classical physics there is a property there that one could try to measure. One could device more and more accurate measurements. I think in principle without limit though of course that could get difficult. If our world is more accurately described by something like the wavefunctions of quantum mechanics then the crux is that those properties aren’t primary. The wavefunction is. Even if you specified the wavefunction perfectly it still has the bound on the spread in the two representations. The question might then be how well could we measure the full shape of a wavefunction to which the answer is even more complicated. There are probably plenty of limits to that. That is yet a different question though. Hope that clarifies at bit. Fourier analysis is at the heart of the Heisenbergs uncertainty relation though.

[@PhilMoskowitz]

I think this is perhaps conditional probability, or quantum Bayesianism in the context of QM.

[@simongross3122]

Certainly seems like it, since the values depend on what we already know.

[@schitlipz]

I never asked this question of anybody before, but what "of" the electron is in the probability field... its mass or charge, or both. Mass seems implied by momentum, but I'm confused. Sorry, dumb question.

[@lonestarr1490]

As far as I understand it, the mass of the electron is fixed (within a given frame of reference), as its invariant mass is one of the fundamental constants of physics. Hence, the thing actually spread out is really its velocity.

[@erikziak1249]

@@lonestarr1490 I would ignore any "mass" and think only in terms of "energy". Energy and time. But I need a vector, yes...

[@cademosley4886]

Wigner came up with a representation theory of particles where a particle is a bundle or representation of quantum properties: position, spin, mass, charge, etc. Those properties are collectively called the Poincaré group, which basically come from the symmetries of movements (boosts, translations, and rotations) in special relativity spacetime. So in that framework, the package or representation of those properties is what the probability distribution is distributing. I don't know if that helps so much as level-up our confusion to a higher level, but that's still a kind of progress. XD

[@artemirrlazaris7406]

technically we have names for things that don't exist, but they are categories of lists, hierarchies, becuae the hierachies are not really told their story. A proton doesn't really exist, its a Up up Down system of relation. There is no body for the proton itself its a name that conviently holds stuff, that stuff is different than the electron in what we state as the electron is what freely goes back and forth between other objects maintain its mean, a hydrogen + ion is a H+ is without a electron just being a proton. What is going on here, is hte best description that should replace proton or atleast always be in position with it, is ORBITAL cloud ,is hte soup fo stiff that is everything of a proton, a star sort of sorts, and Electron is a planet, with its own orbital cloud also, as electron holds other strange things... So yeah... I think proton serves a false presentation as given it to a person as a body. the unified logo from classic physics and classic physics makes more sense still as it produces everything like ion engineers, the theory side is far to heavy, without certainty to harness or use yet... So meh... Orbital clouds is a great way to describe a proton, in which houses various things that make up the collective mass, this is why the protons have variance in tehir weight that seems disordered, but understanding the orbital cloud each mass system of those things relating have varying masses, combined with electron. so proton has many various properties in itself as its really a orbital cloud, like calling the solar system we live isn't real... as is teh star.. since it holds an orbital system. hierarchy of naming culture to which we refine those categories.. as place holders ot epxlain reality in teh best way.

[@eeshtarr]

btw, that's not a 'nu' (as said in 'nu of p') ... it's an eta, as in 'eta of p'

[@danielcopeland3544]

Correct. η is "eta"; "nu" is ν. (Just in case you're reading this on a device that doesn't do Greek letters for some reason: eta looks like an n with a tail; nu looks like a v.)

[@mutabazimichaeljean]

would learning about probability theory helps with understanding Quantum mechanics ? Either way , nice and quite pedagogic video

[@Heulerado]

Yes, but only a little bit. If you want to learn probability theory anyway, then sure, do it. But if you don't care about probability theory and only want it to study QM, then just study QM first, and learn the probability theory you need along the way. It will be much faster. If you are hardcore and want both at the same time, you can study General Probabilistic Theories. It's harder, but it has everything.

[@Valdagast]

You're talking about speed when you're talking about delta-p. But p is combination of mass and velocity. Could it be that the mass is variable?

[@lonestarr1490]

You mean the invariant mass of the electron, one of the fundamental constants of physics?

[@peterbonucci9661]

P is more general. Photons have momentum without mass.

[@peetiegonzalez1845]

I disagree that thinking of an electron as a little blue entity with an adorable face is the problem.

[@babyoda1973]

Where is time in all of this

[@thevillainousqueenofhearts4976]

I am going to need to rewatch this a bunch of times and write it down, cause some of this is not sticking with me 😭

[@tzaidi2349]

Subtle but fundamental. Thanks!

[@fullfungo]

10:52 that’s not nu, that’s eta. Nu - ν Eta - η

[@djayjp]

Not true. Other, equally valid, interpretations of QM state that particles have defined (but not necessarily known) positions and momenta at all times (deterministic interpretations). In those interpretations the Uncertainty principle is merely epistemic, not ontologic.

[@erikziak1249]

I fully accept that there is a fundamental uncertainty that has nothing to do with any measurement or even (theoretically) knowing "everything". But I see this as a limit of our mathematical and logical models, not necessarily a limit of how things really are. But nobody came up with a better theory than we know yet. And I mean a testable theory that can be falsified. I do not buy into any crackpot "mumbo-jumbo" QM BS.

[@HyperFocusMarshmallow]

I hear you. But for pedagogic purposes it can be a good idea to stick to explaining one version of an idea at a time.

[@djayjp]

@HyperFocusMarshmallow Lol you mean misrepresent/lie. Umm no.

[@HyperFocusMarshmallow]

@@djayjp Nope.

[@djayjp]

@@HyperFocusMarshmallow It wasn't stated as being just "one version", therefore it's factually a misrepresentation/lie.

[@erickleuro6159]

Thank you

[@skalderman]

You could get better information about both of em the more you measure though innit

[@Tzubazaah]

Nice video

[@OreoDave]

Thought this was going to be about Tuco Salamanco or Gustavo Fring. 🤷‍♂️

[@GRosa]

Who? 🤔

[@OreoDave]

@GRosa Breaking Bad villains 👍😁👍

[@erikziak1249]

I find it amusing that the show is still being referred. 🙂 Btw. I liked it.

[@OreoDave]

@@erikziak1249 👍😁👍

[@massimoacerbis8138]

awkwardly clear anf complete

[@hughobyrne2588]

4:02 I was just getting used to 'delter x', and then it's jarring again to say 'delta p'...

[@erikziak1249]

So I was not the only one to hear that. 😀

[@Kraflyn]

oh boy... :D

[@KAIZORIANEMPIRE]

also i want you to do a video again on entanglement. I think you can have faster than light communication through binary code. HEY, or NO, you can seperate two entangled systems by a certain distance. You can then create a simple code that states, whatever you want. hello world for example if measurement is made from one of the stations. Granted this system can only have communication once and in a single direction it is communication. Think of it like one person measuring one of the particles like a fire being created to give signal to another group. This is faster than light information. Also can you please read a relevant research paper on an experiment that "proves" entanglement through experiment and then summarize it to us? i am sure many of us would appreciate it.

[@apburner1]

delter x?

[@peterbonucci9661]

In some dialects, the R sound is inserted when there is a vowel sound at the end of a word and the beginning of the next word. So it's "delter x" and "delta p." It's just a regional variation.

[@1emiliobering]

I'm dumb? Eletro has never been in superposition locally Superposition refers to Uncertainty of the state of an object in time You are overfocusing on the state of an object at a particular time

[@vertigoz]

Never seen a Woman saying she was wrong before, this should be interesting! xD