What *is* the wavefunction?

[@PWFSeattle]

9:16 Small correction: probability is the area under the square of Psi, not the square of the area (i.e. square Psi first, then find the area) Nice video, though!

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

You’re absolutely right! Sorry about that!

[@Lachy314]

So you’re saying its Area((Psi)^2) NOT (area(Psi))^2?

[@lex4478]

@@Lachy314yup!

[@shreyshah8541]

@@LookingGlassUniverse but how does ψ2 represent probability of finding the e - and how is that different from radial probability distribution function (4πr2ψ2 )

[@seanmarshallsay2067]

"it's a common misconception in quantum mechanics that everything is discretised" ^ how to become my favourite KZbinr in one easy step

[@imagiro1]

Nicely explained. Just one request, not just to you, but to all physicists: Please stop saying that a particle _is_ in multiple places at once and make it clear, that it is about _probabilities_ of being in any of those places. It took me (not a physicist) a while to learn about that distinction, and although that oversimplification might be helpful to spark interest in quantum mechanics, it's still misleading. It's those oversimplifications that often prevent real understanding of a topic.

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

I think particles are. in superposition, it’s not merely a probability thing

[@imagiro1]

@@LookingGlassUniverse Thank you for your answer! Please don't take my input as an attempt to correct you, that's not my place. I'm a layman and I'm well aware of Dunning-Kruger. But I'm trying to understand. I watched a bunch of videos (and will continue doing so), and one that helped me a lot understanding the superposition was FloatHeadPhysics' video about Schrödinger's cat. My understanding from that video is, that a superposition is something, that can not really be expressed in terms of classical physics. Saying that a particle "is" in a place (or multiple places at once) is an expression rather associated with classical physics, and thus misleading when talking about quantum physics. I had other moments where I stumbled about simplifications that prevented me for a long time getting real understanding, so I might be a bit sensitive in these regards. For example I understood the GRT when I understood the idea of bent spacetime, and that gravity is not an actual, but rather a fictional force (similar to the centrifugal force). It was Vsauce's video "Which way is down" that gave me that heureka moment. So when I'm nitpicking here it's really just about trying to understand it right, and I very much welcome your input on this. Besides: It's really amazing that people like you share their knowledge in the way you do, it's highly appreciated! Edit: The keypoint in FloatHeadPhysics' video is around 10:38.

[@austinlincoln3414]

@imagiro1 I saw that video too lol Honestly to say a particle is in all places at once before measurement isn’t necessarily incorrect, and in fact there is no way to prove this as incorrect because upon measurement a definite state is formed, eliminating the prior superposition. I’ve read that a safer interpretation of position and momentum is that particles actually don’t have any position or momentum prior to measurement, and that measurement itself creates position and momentum states. Who knows with this stuff, you know? Gotta love Mahesh though

[@imagiro1]

@@austinlincoln3414 Yeah, I like the idea of a particle not actually having any of these properties until measured, but I didn't dare to say it like this - and I don't know if it is valid to say it like this. But as I said before, I think it makes a difference for someone who tries to capture the idea of superposition, to think of a particle actually being in multiple places at once or perceiving superposition as a new state, that can't be expressed through classic physics. To me it was quite helpful. However, of course I can be completely wrong - would not be the first time :) Btw, you might also like the video "Visualization of Quantum Physics" by udiprod. It was the first video that gave me what I needed to actually have ideas about quantum mechanics that turned out to be the basic idea behind quantum field theory, plus some other insights. Yet again, I'm grateful to everybody who shares such a knowledge, the more the better. And Mithuna does a great job. I hope she will still be involved in this conversation.

[@austinlincoln3414]

@imagiro1 Thanks for the recommendation! I’ll have to check it out. I wish I understood quantum mechanics more or could do the maths, but I haven’t gotten to that point yet. I read some of this book called introduction to quantum mechanics that was pretty good. That was where I heard about particles having no states until measurement. Also is your pfp from 2001? That’s dope

[@taliaruehr2028]

Grateful for this as I'm reviewing for a Quantum Mechanics final! Thank you!

[@nias2631]

Oh wow! just found this. I'll have to watch them all. Ty for your efforts!

[@SanderKonijnenberg]

I think you're aware of this, and you were just trying to avoid the use of complex numbers for the sake of simplicity, but I think it's important to note that at 15:39, the Fourier transform of a delta peak is not a (co)sine, but a complex exponential. Conceptually this is important, because a cosine-shaped wave function suggests that the electron cannot be at certain positions, whereas a complex exponential suggests it can be anywhere. Also, the statement that 'it's going to be traveling at the speed given by that momentum' is a bit dubious. The phase velocity of a single momentum plane wave is given by c=E/p (follows from Einstein's E=hf, de Broglie's p=h/lambda, and c=lambda*f). It is the group velocity v=dE/dp of a collection of plane waves ('wave packet') that will travel with a velocity v=p/m.

[@DanielPittaluga-mz2pt]

Good explanation. I particularly like your analogy with the crystal. Excellent.

[@MuharremGorkem]

When you hear someone saying "here's an 'anology' for a wave function..." and see a piece of salt-like crystal at her hand, your expectations makes a top until....well the anology completes with the Fourier transform :-) Don't get me wrong. I am an electrical engineer all too familiar with F. transform and even took a lecture (40 years ago) in quantum mechanics where the uncertainity principle was derived in an amazing and supring way using the Fourier transform as far as I recall, I still couldn't help smile your mundane(!) anology :)

[@Shadow_Wulf-31415]

Very helpful and informative, thank you so much. Its refreshing to have this type of material presented in a clear and common-sense manner. Thanks again.

[@justinemcqueen5614]

The wave function reminds me of the state of fan blades that spin so quickly that the position of the blade is blurred, where it appears to occupy everywhere on its path simultaneously and therefore simply appears to be in a state of superposition. Not that it is of course but rather it is our inability to keep up with its precise location at any time.

[@DanielPittaluga-mz2pt]

Great analogy

[@amihartz]

Sadly, simple explanations such as it oscillating between states quickly does not work. This can be shown in Bell's theorem, as it would violate the speed of light limit. The only way to get around particles existing literally in multiple states at once without violating the cosmic speed limit is to just treat the outcome of any physical interaction at all (even between two particles) as both random and relative to a chosen frame of reference, which is just relational quantum mechanics.

[@kzeich]

I like that

[@Heulerado]

The analogy is good for visualizing the "blurriness" in position, and because you chose motion as the source of blurriness, you'll notice that it's also a good analogy for vilualizing the "blurriness" in momentum (the faster they spin, the harder it is to know how fast the blades spin). BUT! That is exactly why it's not a good analogy for quantum mechanics! In QM, it should be easier to see how fast the blades spin if they are blurry, and if the blades are perfectly clear, it should be impossible to tell how fast they spin.

[@itoibo4208]

@@Heulerado I am still struggling to understand the meaning of these words, like collapsing a wave function, and the concepts. i think the crystal only made it worse. so far, the way i see it is, "i have two measurements i can read, but i can only read one thing at a time. i can tell you the position at some exact moment in time, or i can tell you the rate over a given time span, doing either of which i will, weirdly, call "collapsing the wave function". and these confusing words and poor examples are why people think photons are watching to see if you are looking at them, and changing their behavior if they see you spying on them.

[@MichaelPiercePhilosophy]

You have clarified so much for me. I was struggling for a while with these concepts. Thank you for making this. I'm excited to check out the other videos!

[@kfawell]

That was a terrific video. It's the first time as a lay person to get that kind of detail about what a wave function is. I do have a 4-year degree in computer science and electrical engineering from a long time ago, but even now I could roughly understand what's going on. It makes me wonder why so much hand waving is being done instead of just giving some details like this. I understand that plenty of people have no college-level math so showing them these things in a mathematical way would be useless. But you also managed to present intuitive description. So I guess in summary I wonder why a video like this hasn't been done in the past, or somehow I missed it despite watching hundreds of videos related to this.

[@ZweiZombies]

This was fun! I love that you present some physical reasoning for the Fourier transform to pop up here

[@liliana_morel]

OMG i sooooo needed this video right now, you came just in time!

[@dk6024]

The spike is the Dirac delta function?

[@pedroff_1]

I think peetty much yeah. Issue is the uncertainty principle would make it have infinite possible velocities, with nin-decaying probabilities.

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

Yup!

[@solconcordia4315]

Maybe the speed of light in free space being finite helps prevent the spike from being the Dirac delta [extended]function.

[@solconcordia4315]

Maybe the impulse p's velocity used in the Uncertainty Principle is *ACTUALLY* v/√(1 - v^2 / c^2) to avoid the spike becoming a Dirac delta [extended]function by complying with special relativity's universal speed limit of v < or = c.

[@solconcordia4315]

Maybe the impulse p's velocity used in the Uncertainty Principle is ACTUALLY v/√(1 - v^2 / c^2) to avoid the spike becoming a Dirac delta [extended]function by complying with special relativity's universal speed limit of v < or = c.

[@justinreamer9187]

Great work, Mithna! Keep up the good work!

[@HarshColby]

Thanks for producing this series. It's quite helpful.

[@lepton56]

Refreshingly illuminating and wonderful presentation.

[@smoorej]

Wow, really really good explanation of the topic. Absolutely brilliant. Subscribed.

[@DrDeuteron]

the crystal analogy is better than you let on: we do see projections onto a space axis or a momentum axis, and they are 90 degree rotations of the projection direction. If you don't believe me, see "fractional Fourier transform".

[@lambda4931]

Thank you a billion times! Your videos are so interesting! It would be great if you were able to walk us through the application process where the equations are actually used to create a product.

[@lambda4931]

@ a product that requires the use of a quantum equation in order to be produced maybe a computer chip or a laser etc.

[@Theo0x89]

9:08 Is it (area under the graph of the function)² or area under the graph of (function²)?

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

Oops, you’re right! Square the function first then integrate. Sorry about that!

[@codetoil]

Well, technically it is the area underneath the function defined by the product of the conjugate of the wavefunction and the original wavefunction; and/or the area of the function defined by the square of the magnitude of the wavefunction. The wavefunctions take a position in space and time and returns a complex number, a linear combination of 1 and sqrt(-1)

[@kevinmcfarlane2752]

@@codetoilThe presentation would be spoiled by going into that much detail!

[@DrDeuteron]

9:26 it's not the area under the curve squared, it's the area and the square of the curve.

[@djayjp]

Could you please do a video on Jacob Barandes' latest work? 🙏

[@CKHaun]

Thank you for the clearest description of the wavefunction on KZbin!

[@oleksandr4546]

As a person who had to do the full Fourier transform with pen and paper, I can say it was NOT easy 😅

[@Vidar2032]

If all schools had the same level of educational representation as this, the world would be filled with much smarter people. This was outstanding!

[@salerio61]

you want PhD level maths and physics to be taught in schools? There's a reason for the bell curve. What a ridiculous comment

[@Vidar2032]

@@salerio61 My point wasn't the level of education, but the level og educational representation. Two very different things. No one expects this level of academic expertise to be taught in elementary, middle, or high schools. But when a presenter has strong academic qualities and the ability to visualize in a way that gives students a better chance of learning a subject, regardless of level, a good foundation is laid for a broad understanding of the subject among students.

[@QuicksilverSG]

Where physicists frequently drop the ball in their explanations of how a particle can be in a superposition of quantum states is in failing to make clear that the multiple "places" they're referring to are not physical locations in 3D space. These are coordinate positions in the abstract, multi-dimensional realm known as Configuration Space, where the quantum wave-function is defined. Moreover, the "weights" associated with these coordinate positions are not merely negative, they are complex-valued probability amplitudes, a completely non-physical aspect of the quantum wave-function. Where such a superpostion becomes physically observable is at the point of measurement, where it is probabilistically projected into a particular location in 3D space in accordance with Born's rule (which calculates the conjugate square of the superposition's probability amplitudes to produce a real-valued probability of observing the particle in that location). In short, subatomic particles do not occupy multiple locations in 3D space; they manifest as a superpostion of locations in the abstract, multi-dimensional realm of Configuration Space.

[@jezzamobile]

Great explanation! 😎👍

[@ArnMH81]

To be honest she has such beautiful face, voice and especially eyes that it is difficult to concentrate on the information provided. Still she explains so clearly that even I understood everything. Another problem is to remember))

[@boredgrass]

Ooh dear, a c r i s t a l ... I can see certain people banging their tables and shouting "I knew it has to do with cristals!!!"🙄...Sorry just couldn't resist. 😉I love this series! Public education and at it's best! AND, the "dead" declared social media alive and kicking;-) Wonderful❤

[@maxkon2000]

I like your channel a lot but I believe you have a subtle misconception about what the wave function is. The wave function isn't a/the state in a Hilbert Space it is a representation of the state in a chosen coordinate space (may be position or momentum or something else). It is inherently tied to a coordinate system. Yes it contains all the information of the state but it isn't the state. The same way the coordinates of a vector represent an abstract vector. This also allows the wave function to be a Dirac Delta since it is only defined in the spectral decomposition of the state and is always integrated over. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_state

[@Heulerado]

I agree that physicists use the word "state" rather than "wavefunction" for the obvious reason that it's, uh, not a function. When we do use "wavefunction", we usually give it its full name in whatever basis it may be ("the wavefunction in the momentum basis", or "the position wavefunction"), unless it's obvious from context, etc. But I think it's valid (or at least instructive, if taught like she has in this video) to generalize it and talk about searching "THE wavefunction", which we can project into the various bases. That would be describing the state vector |ψ>, like the video says. The big problem is that it's, uh, not a function. Physicists are not new at giving things the exact wrong names, but I think we shouldn't be encouraging it. So a big disclaimer would've been nice.

[@maxkon2000]

@@Heulerado Thx for the reply yes some physicists mix the terminology. I believe this has the historical reason that and most of the original equation for QM also work for the representation of the state. Hence the distinction is not necessary in this context. But i have a particular issue with the following scene at 12:31. Where she clearly states the opposite of what is correct. Which will confuse people if they try to really understand it.

[@kricketflyd111]

I love that crystal you have there, where can I get one? It's so relevant to crystal growth. 😮 Wonderful class today, Thank You.

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

It's a calcite crystal! It's hard to get a nice clear one- I got this one on Etsy

[@winstongludovatz111]

The wave function \psi is complex valued. Probabilities are defined by the square |\psi|^2. Obviously by passing from \psi to |\psi|^2 we have wiped out a lot of information (namely the phase). If this were the whole story, QM would work with ordinary real valued probability densities instead. "Superpositions" of probability densities can also easily be defined: every convex combination of probability densities is another probability density. You need to explain why this is not enough for QM, i.e. what the significance of the phase is. In particular in view of the fact that \psi and a*\psi describe the same state , for every scalar a with |a|=1.

[@Desertphile]

Thank you.

[@willk9847]

This is brilliant thank you

[@vonneumann6161]

12:32 The left hand side is NOT the wave function. It’s the state vector (or the ket vector). It’s not even a function! The function \psi(x) on the right hand side is the position basis wave function. It’s called position basis wave function because the right hand side is the base decomposition of the state vector by the position basis.

[@amihartz]

I've never understood why people often call the state vector the "wave function" when it's not literally a function. Although, maybe it is because my learning is through quantum computing and not through traditional physics education. I always associated the state vector with |ψ⟩ and the wave function with ψ(x)=⟨x|ψ⟩.

[@briandwi2504]

First class explanation. I get it!

[@arshidwani5062]

i am getting to understand psi , thank you.

[@nias2631]

That was very clear, I like primers like this to get a sense of the "knowledge landscape". That made quite a few things click.

[@shubhammingwal8465]

Can you make a video on making sense of time evolution of a wave function, specially for free particle.

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

Yup! I’ll do the schrodinger equation soon

[@jack.d7873]

Great presentation with easy to follow mathematics aiding clear communication. This is probably the best explanation of the Wave function I've even seen online. The course youre offering looks very enticing after watching your teaching skills. Though the link says the product is not available. Is it still going to be offered?

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

Thank you so much! The next cohort starts in the first week of January :)

[@sombh1971]

Hmm... good pedagogy, keep at it!

[@finalfan321]

any video on Willow?

[@YarUnderoaker]

If we design a certain quantum cellular automaton and then install a quantum particle in it and a device that measures it, how complex does this device have to be for the wave function of this particle to collapse (how minimal can an observer be whose components are also quantum)?

[@iwantagoodnameplease]

I had no idea you were still making videos. The last one youtube showed me was from 9 months ago!

[@PrashantNanda]

यह अपारदर्शी और पारदर्शी ऊर्जा है जो केवल ईस आवृत्ति में होती है जैसे अवकाश या वायु या प्रकाश लेकिन दर्शीय ऊर्जा जैसे तरल और पदार्थ में क्या होता है? अवस्था के अनुसार आवृति मे बदलाव आता है और इसकी डिजाइन और पैटर्न भी बदल जाते हैं। 0=(-0/-0)

[@AltairZielite]

I keep hearing the term "collapse"... what does that mean?

[@viralsheddingzombie5324]

The wave no longer describes the state of the particle, because a measurement's specific value is known. General to specific.

[@simplelife1021]

When something collapses, like a building, it goes from having large extended structure to a pile of rubble much smaller than its original size. When a wave function "collapses" it's reduced to one of the basis states. So if just measured where the particle is, the answer you'll get is "at x=1" and the state it's now in is the wave function for a particle at x=1. This will in general be a much simpler state than before you measured it. So it's collapsed in the sense that it's squished down to a spike at just one place on the x axis.

[@solconcordia4315]

The wave function has been measured/quantized/communicated to have practically settled into a quantum state called an eigenstate (one of the countably many dictated by the measuring apparatus and the object being measured) which can be made by a subsequent measurement to produce a specific rational number called its eigenvalue. Every eigenvalue isn't a point but an interval because the number 1 = 1/3 × 3 = 0.33... × 3 = 0.99... is between 0.9 and 1.1 = 2 - 0.9, between 0.99 and 1.01 = 2 - 0.99 and so on. There is *ALWAYS* a gap between the two bounds. All other rational numbers can obtained by scaling the number one with a nonzero rational number.

[@solconcordia4315]

As one produces the eigenvalues from eigenstate and the eigenvalues always have a fuzziness due to the limited resolution of the measuring apparatus, there is an inherent uncertainty in the eigenstate. A wave function which has "collapsed" means that it is practically in an eigenstate with a fuzziness not measurable by the apparatus but can be consequential via positive feedbacks in subsequent measurements (i.e. the Butterfly Effect in Chaos Theory).

[@MrMctastics]

A classical measurement had occurred meaning there is now a new distribution of where the particle could be based on each infinitesimal of the basis or whatever and how each infinitesimal would react classically. At least that’s what Landau told me in his cool special books

[@neobaud513]

It was very nicely described and I get it but what IS the wave function though? Is it just a mathematical model that works or is it representing something physical in reality?

[@amihartz]

She believes in a class of interpretations called MWI which argues that the wave function is not only a literal physical entity but there is only actually one of them in existence, and in fact it is the _only_ thing in existence, i.e. the entire universe is just one giant infinite-dimensional "universal wave function" and the little ones we perceive are just due to us only perceiving a part of it at a time from a particular perspective.

[@randyollmann4202]

When you say that the infinite spike is not a real function do you mean to say that the function must be continuous? If so, is that function necessarily nonzero everywhere? does that mean that there is a small but nonzero chance of finding an electron miles away from the testing station? Is this what quantum tunneling is?

[@fengels1004]

Thanks Madam.

[@Jimmy-m3x]

Why do crystals and chairs and dogs and trees appear to us as objects that persist through time? I understand that particles locally coalesce when measured but what keeps the particles in the chairs and trees coalesced and consistent through time? Is it a constant interaction with the environment or do they coalesce once and then persist without experiencing a delta in energy that destroys the persistence? Or is there some information encoded in the wavefunction, if it is universal, that causes objects to persist?

[@jamesmather7896]

Can you do a piece on the nature of WF collapse and what constitutes an observation (like why doesn’t it collapse sometimes and not others - for example recording the result on a computer but deleting the information before checking it? Turning on and off photon detectors so they are keeping a record/not keeping a record? Removing them? Adding detectorsbut leaving them unplugged etc Does this maintain interference?). This is not really clear in all the QP videos I’ve seen. I feel this is a very misunderstood aspect of quantum mechanics.

[@amihartz]

It would be interesting since she believes in the Many-Worlds (multiverse interpretation) and I have never been able to visualize what it even _means_ to make an observation in terms of Many-Worlds as it is not clear to me where the observables even are in such an interpretation. In relational quantum mechanics, it is very simple, an observation is just an interaction between any two physical systems _from the perspective of one of those systems,_ i.e. the realization of the properties of the system does not occur for physical systems not part of the interaction, meaning that what properties of a system have been realized or not depends upon reference frame.

[@Rudol_Zeppili]

Is there an aspect of the wavefunction for energy?

[@simplelife1021]

Yep! The basis for that is expressed in terms of states with definite energy. If you want to know more, look up the quantum Hamiltonian.

[@Rudol_Zeppili]

@ Thank You!

[@buckminsterfullerene2294]

The electron is only in a position to a reference point, right? as our earth and sun are travelling at great speeds, how does this relate to the electrons existence?

[@Juttutin]

I've always been curious how an (e.g.) electrons wavefunction relates (or doesn't) to it's associated electromagnetic waves. Ditto for a photon. Are these entirely unrelated? Which feels unlikely, but I've never seen it addressed.

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

Amazing question. The EM field is pretty intimately related to “photons”- vibrations of the field are what leads to light. This topic is worthy of a whole course in itself!

[@buckminsterfullerene2294]

If our sun stopped and earth and the universe we are attached to stopped all movement, would anything including matter and electrons exist?

[@dhruvvikrant]

Is the wave function physical?

[@davidaugustyn9234]

did you take any chemistry classes

[@classicalmechanic8914]

Wavefunction is not just probability. Physical phenomena require units.

[@mooseyard]

The units are the bases.

[@RealTechnoPanda]

But why male models? --Zoolander

[@mooseyard]

Great explanation, but I have to nitpick about the math. A few times you say a function that’s zero everywhere but infinite at one point “isn't even a real function.” No, it’s a perfectly fine function mathematically! Maybe what you mean is that it’s not continuous, or its range isn’t finite?

[@jamescureton]

Funny to think about it it...pretty deep stuff to think about it...

[@Kraflyn]

doesn't every finite system have discrete eigenvectors and eigenvalues?

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

No, it can still have countably infinite eigenvalues/vectors. Eg, the harmonics that form the energy eigenstates for the infinite square well.

[@Kraflyn]

@@LookingGlassUniverse Aren't these discrete?

[@simplelife1021]

@@Kraflyn I think you're right. Discrete values can be countably infinite.

[@Naturehack]

For it is written Vs Life we're living Alphabetic effects above neck => It's this way it's that way Mathematics is rooted in much the same way Doing my best to stimulate content Keep up the good work

[@wiadroman]

1:28 somethig called the wave function - to my ignorant eyes it looks like a pitchfork TBH

[@anothersquid]

we called psi, "The chickenfoot operator" back in university

[@brothermine2292]

It's misleading to say the wavefunction is the "state" of a system. It's actually a representation of our knowledge of what would be observed if the system were measured. (See the Born rule.) Our knowledge of the system state is usually limited & incomplete, so the predictions of measurement results are usually probabilistic, with the probabilities summing to 1. "Superposition" is a fancy way of saying there are at least two possible results if the system were measured. In other words, each of the probabilities is less than 1.

[@simplelife1021]

States in QM are abstract vectors in Hilbert spaces, and projecting a state vector onto the position basis gives the wave function. The wave function contains all the information of the state in the form of complex coefficients, so it's perfectly fine to call the wave function the state.

[@brothermine2292]

>simplelife1021 : The claim that the known information is the _complete_ information is an unproved metaphysical claim promoted by Bohr, which was disbelieved by Einstein, Schrodinger, Bohm, Bell et al. Also, a projection can lose information. Consider a photon that passed through a horizontally-oriented polarizing filter. Projecting its state to a vertically-oriented basis wavefunction (in order to predict the probabilities of the possible results of vertically-oriented measurements) suggests the photon is in a superposition of up & down polarizations, which loses the info about its actual horizontal polarization prior to the measurement.

[@brothermine2292]

@simplelife1021 : The claim that the known information is _complete_ is a metaphysical claim promoted by Bohr, disbelieved by Einstein, Schrodinger, Bohm, Bell et al. A projection can lose information. Consider a photon that passed through a horizontally-oriented filter. Projecting to a non-horizontal basis loses the info about its horizontal polarization.

[@johnchase2148]

😢 Trying to understand the Sun which I have learned that my thoughts are faster than the speed of light of a response with witnesses. Would love to be wrong for beliefs of entanglement. No fear of looking at it ,

[@akashr967]

glass

[@jamescureton]

So.everyone.is at two places at once or more

[@jaredsheffield7647]

80 Hz is surprisingly unpleasant.

[@SampleroftheMultiverse]

This video shows a natural quantized effect using a version Euler’s Contain Column Theory? This video of an engineering test models the quantum physics problem called “Particle in a Box”. The wave function is used to predict the location of quantum particles, atomic structure and molecules. kzbin.info/www/bejne/raOlpKSfepWpfZYsi=J5jCMxq3pRe_P-gG Very stable trusses and truss core panels have been fabricated using the process shown in the video. The video shows how materials naturally respond to induced stresses in a “quantized“ manor. The process’s load/deflection’s sawtooth curve with its exponential fit, in the engineering, study shows in detail the bifurcation area between quantum jumps. The effect has been used to make light weight structures and shock mitigating/recoiled reduction systems and earthquakes isolation systems. The model shows why with the, exponential load increase and loss of resistance at phase change, quantum jumps are so very fast.

[@michaelblankenau6598]

Too many big words .

[@SampleroftheMultiverse]

@ true that! First saw the effect, all knew was the frequency and energy relationship. The first ten years I was trying to make light weight structures with it. The next ten years I found in a engineering handbook on this column thing. It’s the old pushing down on a wooden yard stick buckling effect. The last ten years people have been telling me it looked like this wave function thing in modern physics. Had no idea what either of those things were. Now, Just trolling 🧌 it in front of the mostly elitist professionals so they can tell me it’s a bunch of crap 💩!

[@ashishpatel350]

what is the electron doing? well not their homework. lol

[@joepike1972]

You can actually do a Fourier transformation mechanically: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bJW6Z4mPjdVsfq8

[@mrslave41]

thank you 🙏. really clear. and really interesting. however - not very intuitive 😢😢😢😢. to begin with - how is this ever useful? please 😢

[@solconcordia4315]

It's a "resource." It's *USELESS* until it's connected via "technology" to applications.

[@mooseyard]

Most 20th century technology is based on quantum mechanics. Semiconductors / chips / transistors, atomic energy, radio communication…

[@johanndohmann1281]

now i know that electrons seems to be blue and not smiling. because It could not find an exact place to stay? your smile instead indicates that you are in the right place. Best wishes from Germany.

[@JrgenMonkerud-go5lg]

a fun little classical model i like a lot, because it works pretty much like matter for everything from gravity to optics to whatever, except involved electrodynamics and so on; Is light in a box. lets imagine that we have a semi transparrent baloon filled with light and that only relfects and transmits light, so we essentially have a little greenhouse filled with light and inflated by the radiation pressure inside, lets also imagine for the sake of the agrument that the radiation pressure inside is constant, so it stays inflated. the light inside is going to carry all the momentum of the mass, and it is a mass simply by virtue that its state of motion is alterable, it behaves just like normal matter, e=mc^2 and all, to change its momentum we just scatter some light of it, some of it gets absorbed by the baloon and some scatters off it, and its packet of light waves inside is now changes, in the previous staionary reference frame, where it has over all 0 momentum in the radiation inside, it now has some momentum in a different direction, because of the transmission and relfection properties it also contains more energy but scatting it back and forth smoothly and slowly does not change its stable mass, because if it is carrying too much light with respect to the exterior more will leave than enter and so on. let the surface fluctuate with the light inside and let there be uncertainty in the content of the light inside, thens subject it to some light you scatter off it to measure its position or momentum, find me the uncertainies :P. it is a classical model so what gives?

[@SuperElwira]

Voice-work with please, is too crunchy when you modulate-dont do this, you have lovely natural voice, do not low it or make high and five this crunchy terrible sound like old motor or ciuch , old frog. You need speak loder if you modulate it and do not hold tour voice in deep throut-move it to teeths, take few lessons, it could be a reason. Make nice, smooth voice. Dont repeat the same things but hudge plus for details for begeeners , no one tells it-only you, but you need better form, graphs...

[@SANN-1969]

Think too much

[@Kraflyn]

maybe Feynman's approach from his lectures would fit better, so that peeps understand why square

[@RobertLeitz]

Here is one of the "End Points".. Where is "The Green" in "The SpaceX Launch"...???... "Google A Rainbow Picture"...Take Care...Bye... Look at "The Rainbow" as "A Gentle Pendulum Clock"... Green Arrow In Or Down.. Orange Arrow Up Or Out.... "Yellow Is The Tick".... SpaceX Launch Speeds Up The Pendulum.... "Squeezes The Rainbow Together"... Green Goes "In" The Engine.. You Can Only See Orange "Out".. Take Care...Bye...

[@timothy8426]

Heat waves. Mass disolving internal magnetic fields as external heat energy outside of entanglement of mass as campfires. Lightning burns through atmospheric gasses disolving into external heat energy outside of entanglement of mass as fire bouncing off atmospheric gasses lighting up the sky instantaneously. Campfires slowly disolving internal magnetic fields disolving into external heat energy as fire. Electricity is rapid heat exchanging through mass faster than earth's quantum internal magnetic fields grounding currents through its nucleus or core where external heat energy is strongest as molten masses held in centrifugal force cycling circulation as mass. Mass occupies space within mass as outward force of pressure known as magnetism weightlessness outside of a farther reaching greater magnetic field. External magnetic fields spinning all external heat energy within its field outside of the nucleus or core is a repulsion external magnetic field. External magnetic fields spinning all external heat energy away from renewable heat energy of mass causing mass to disolving into external heat energy outside of entanglement of mass as outward force of pressure no longer holding internal magnetic fields grounding currents through its nucleus or core. External heat energy outside of entanglement of mass doesn't ground currents it strips away renewable heat energy singularities away from internal magnetic fields. They disolve from within as outward force of pressure of cold repulsion of occupational space. Conservation of heat energy singularities outside of entanglement of mass as fire. Fire is external heat energy outside of entanglement of mass. Accumulation is disolving internal magnetic fields as external heat energy outside of entanglement of mass as fire. Stars decay their atmospheric gasses as fire lighting up the atmosphere like a filament bouncing off atmospheric gasses still present.

[@davidrandell2224]

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics including the CAUSE of gravity, electricity, magnetism, light and well.... everything. Light is a cluster of expanding electrons, not ‘photons.’ Etc.

[@Tanath]

Pretty sure you're wrong and it's not a misconception. Spacetime is discrete, else you run into Zeno's paradox of motion.

[@mooseyard]

No, it’s still fairly fringe theory. Zeno's paradox is not a real thing - it only existed because the ancient Greeks didn’t understand infinite series, I.e how an infinite number of terms could have a finite sum.

[@kingplunger1]

That isn't an actual Paradox

[@Tanath]

@@mooseyard okay, well I've seen it argued that if spacetime weren't quantized that the universe would be full of light. What about that?

[@amihartz]

Zeno's paradox can be solved using limits in calculus without using discrete spacetime. A lot of physicists think spacetime _might_ be discrete and there are some tentative theories suggesting this like loop quantum gravity, but none of them have evidence for them and are just speculation.

[@Kraflyn]

you can view the Dirac Delta Function as the Dirac Delta Distribution: it is an infinitely narrow Gaussian. Fig. 2 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function

[@BreakingphysicsbeyondtheSMOPP]

The wave function is in fact a wave propagating through the spacetime lattice, the Cosmic Web a network of super tiny elastic tubes with 26 dimensions at the Planck level. The wave function never collapses, I showed in 2019 that it is always detected in space or time, one or the other. When it acts like a wave in time it is detected as a particle in space like a particle when it acts like a particle in time it is detected in space as a wave(in reality it is a localised wave crest giving the illusion of a particle). I showed that in 2019 and informed this channel, like many others. I guess when galaxies 10 billion years old are detected 200million years from the supposed big bang and pop physicists refuse to acknowledge that the big bang has been falsified, absolutely and it is clear to every honest scientist, it's probably a bit too much to expect physicists to acknowledge I proved the wave function never collapses and it comes with the complete and authentic Theory of Everything, when it proves the big bang and particle model are both wrong, we need to think in terms of waves and vortices. I guess thats a bit too revolutionary for too many cosy and comfortable big bang and particle physicists. Even proof to Goldbach's Conjecture and proof a 2nd loop is impossible in the Collatz Conjecture (both in 1 minute shorts on my channel) are not welcome when you dare to say the big bang and particle model are wrong. Soz they're wrong.

[@Kraflyn]

girlie, no one knows what a wavefunction is. Yes, it is the probability density function, but only after the measurement. Before the measurement it interacts with itself, as in the double slit experiment. There is no "basically" about it.

[@haushofer100]

"Girlie" must be so happy random people correct her on her expertise.

[@WanJae42]

Since you're positioning yourself as a subject matter expert, why don't you make your own series of videos so we can all get a load of your knowledge

[@AdrianBoyko]

“girlie”?

[@Kraflyn]

@@AdrianBoyko Isn't she?

[@Kraflyn]

@@WanJae42 I'm not publishing sheet in this life. Besides, you are missing the point: as long as she believes she understands wavefunction, this conviction blocks her way forward. Because - no one knows what the wavefunction is.

[@zeotex2851]

I would rly recommend the book "Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum" over the MIT lectures on YT. It conveys the way to think about QM in a much better way / at all. The wave function is a description of abstract axiomatic / previously agreed upon states, not a thing in space. The latter way of thinking about it causes a lot of headache and for some reason is the canonical one when considering beginner / intermediate explanations. ❤️💚🤍

[@amihartz]

I highly recommend _Контекстуальный реализм и квантовая механика_ if you want a book that interprets quantum theory in local realist terms without introducing anything metaphysical (unobservable) like hidden variables or particles in multiple places at once.