Understanding Quantum Mechanics #6: It's not just a theory for small things

[@cipaisone]

depite being not a physicst, it was always clear to me that quantum mechanics could not be a serious theory if its application was only valid for "small" objects. it is umbelivable that so many physicists on youtube describe QM as the theory of the small objects. thanks for making it clear.

[@epajarjestys9981]

@jareser daxeserty I think that movie was full-on bullshit.

[@xspotbox4400]

This would make relativity a quantum mechanical phenomena. I'm not sure this is how it works, because reality is made from interacting fields that exist everywhere where universe is, at same time. This interactions cause bubbling of stuff we call particles, so it could be other way around and QM is relativistic deep down.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

Sabine Hossenfelder should study quantum biology. Hameroff and Penrose and Professor JohnJoe McFadden. Resonance enables quantum entanglement to be amplified up to larger scales - it's due to noncommutative phase of the resonance.

[@teejayevans]

I agree quantum effects large things....but... Weak/Strong forces is only at very short distances, double split experiment, etc It almost sounds like some quantum physicists are feeling inadequate. ;-)

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@teejayevans read Dr. Olivier Costa de Beauregard. Relativistic quantum mechanics are asymmetric. So the weak force is amplified but it's from reverse time negentropy. Virtual photons can be "captured" and resonated.

[@alisaiterkan]

This is freaky. İt's almost as though she knows what i am wondering about and then provides a video to answer all questions İ can't lookup due to the technical depths into which I can't venture. And every single explanation is understandable yet not watered down. Science communication at its best.

[@jamesmacdonald5556]

Nice fairy tail. The Quantum Conspiracy kzbin.info/www/bejne/mnbElpaLqqqknMU

[@Stan_144]

Maybe you are entangled with her ?

[@alisaiterkan]

@@Stan_144 Rereading how I wrote my comment, I really did put this one on a platter for you.

[@bsadewitz]

When one doesn't know much about something, a little knowledge can seem like a lot. It seems like she knows what you are thinking because she has an articulate and parsimonious lecturing style. Obviously, if you didn't care about the material and weren't thinking about it, it wouldn't seem like she knew what you were thinking. ;-) She is perhaps the best science communicator I have ever encountered. Caveat: no one is testing me, so how do I really know?

[@carlorossi2788]

@@bsadewitz best communicator? about what? the affirmations must be proved Galilean I say Galileo Galilei physicist born in Pisa Italy the m.q. particle measures EFFECTS not the real world! describes the world with models! on a macroscopic level it is a failure its extensions on the physical universe are only fantastic abstractions of quantum physicists GALILEO DOCET greetings from Rome

[@jlpsinde]

I'm a physics teacher and this video is just amazing really incredible.

[@craigwall9536]

You are? God help your students...

[@blueckaym]

@@craigwall9536 , That's a very good point you make here (even if it doesn't apply specifically to Jorge Monteiro). It's one of the reasons half of physicists think that perhaps the biggest problem in QM is not a real problem - poor education without understanding, just repeating statements (incl. unproven assumptions) But because of the trolling nature of your comment I can't hit 'like' :)

[@nadirceliloglu397]

No,no. Not everything what she says is correct. Sometimes I disagree with the arguments of Sabine in her videos,although I agree with most of them. Quantum mechanics is INDEED about the subatomic world,not about the macroscopic world. There is no confusion on this. It is defined in this way. Again,quantum effects happen in short or and in long distances and there is NO confusion on this either. You gave sun as an example,but the sun is big yes,but the way it produces such a huge amount of heat and light is through quantum mechanics ( nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium) and NOT THROUGH classical physics. I think it is not a good example of a big quantum matter. The fusion process takes place in the SUBATOMIC world.

[@cristianchisbora8289]

You are one of a kind, Sabine, so few scientists know to communicate in such an accesible and logic manner!

[@ashirahelat4749]

I am addicted to your talks and I love your sense ofhumor

[@XylyXylyX]

My favorite quantum effect that has major macroscopic consequences: The Pauli Exclusion Principle. This effect is what makes chemistry possible and the entire world as we experience would just be a blob of uninteresting atomic matter without it. Sabine discussed the stability of atoms, which is closely related to this, but I think arguably different. The fact that QM tells us that the ground state has a finite energy is, arguably, why atoms are stable. The Pauli Exclusion Principle is why electrons must stack themselves in a complex way around the nucleus giving us all of chemistry!

[@Dragrath1]

Yep it also drives the existence of metals i.e. election degenerate matter which also supports giant planets brown dwarfs and whit dwarf stars against gravity. And then there is neutron degeneracy pressure which supports neutron stars against the crushing force of gravity and are very much macroscopic quantum objects

[@rajesh_shenoy]

Yes, and that's the reason we don't fall through the floor.

[@antoniomaglione4101]

Hello Ms. Hossenfelder, There is no Nobel prize for explaining well (well=coherently) the quantum mechanics; in the case, you would be the clear winner! I recall, decades ago, when I expunged the quantum theory by myself. Of little help was my knowledge of calculus. The book which taught of wavefunction had more symbols and formulas than written text. Two years passed before I grasped the base concepts; this was because all books explained (mathematically) how to operate with those concepts, not what they meant. More than thirty years later, there is Internet, then you. This short video is the best logically chained explanation of what quantum mechanics is, so have my compliments for that. If I may suggest, the part that follows immediately after "why the electron doesn't emit RF radiation and falls into the nucleus" could benefit from introducing the concept of "behaviour vs. appearance" intrinsic to quantum mechanics. Thank you.

[@pabloemiliorui2281]

The Steel Man argument: she makes the opposing case as strong as she can and still refutes it. Evidence of a solid argument.

[@jamesmacdonald5556]

I do not want to sound like a male chauvinist Pig but come on guys: have you ever meet a women that does not do this to us??? I think it has do with the right and left part of their brains are more close connected than in us males: just a speculation. "Yes dear, I remember I have a project in the garage I need to finish." Make sure you have lots of pillows in the garage that you can scream in. " Are you done with your project?" "Yes dear, what were we talking about: just a moment, I have another project in in the garage I need to finish,"

[@Steeyuv]

@@jamesmacdonald5556 sorry, if you don't want to sound like a male chauvinist pig, I think you will need to try harder...this is just pure intelligence at work and is not gender-specific.

[@RWin-fp5jn]

She is OK for a mere mathematician, but her deeper understanding of physics is mediocre. Quanta only refer to the number of windings of the spiraled appearing EM grid fieldline that determines the grid of the inner area of the atom. There is NO spacetime inside the atom (hence no electron can 'fall in' towards the nucleus in spatial terms). An atom bound electron is nothing more than a double 'discharge' point where such a bend EM grid fieldline intersects with our ST continuum that dominates the outer world of the electron. That is why the Max Planck Institute has photographed the electron always being a double intersection point at each side of an He atom. It has nothing to do with physical 'probabilities'. So childish even after 100 years. Electron orbits are simply a collection of these stroboscopic discharges of the same fieldline wrapping clockwise and anti clockwise...Time to move on from these hopeless academics that keep repeating their same dogmatic mistakes over and over again. Its their own brain-dead academic interpretations that have been preventing progress in physics. Or like Einstein said: You can't solve problems with the same thinking we used when we created them....Fair enough its not just Sabine...Its basically all of them...

[@pabloemiliorui2281]

@@RWin-fp5jn easy on the dissmissiveness pal. If that is the case, please direct me to the place whence you learnt that so I can know more.

[@Steeyuv]

@@RWin-fp5jn and I have no basis on which to argue - the only point I can make is that to such a layman as myself, she makes clear what the issue, for those that do know the details, actually is.

[@gracemember101]

Sabine, today's video was a real revelation to me. I have wondered greatly about many of the examples you listed and thought your explanations were the best I've ever heard. I've watched many science programs and KZbin channel presentations on quantum mechanics and they never link the small with the large the way you do. Thanks for sharing your insights with us. God has given you great understanding of the very small.

[@parasuramvenkatesh4401]

"Why don't planets fall into the sun?" "They *do*!" bruh that got dark for a sec there

[@idontcare7961]

Bunch of lies.

[@voom6996]

@@idontcare7961 Yeah, bunch of lies; just like your computer, your mobile phone and the display you are staring at are bunch of lies. Or are they, Marko? They exist, they are right in front of you, they work and you use them daily! Now riddle me this, Marko, how do they work? How does the internet/wifi work, how does your remote magically turn your TV off and then back on again, how does a lightbulb work, what in the world are liquid crystal displays? How does x-ray imaging or MRTs work??? How do you explain how a plane flies or how GPS can bring you anywhere you want, Marko? Isn't that fucking magical, but it happens every day right in front of your eyes! When you can't explain those phenomena confidently, how the fuck can you be so certain about earth's curvature? When you research about phenomena happening in your every day life, _how can you differentiate between truth and lie_ - _aren't you being hypocritical while doing so?_ Science isn't just an abstract theory machinery where lies can be told without consequences, the beauty of it is that it can be used to make practical things out of it, that can be turned into gadgets that have use in real life - *you can't just ignore them.* Those are the tests of the science you oppose. You have to be able to understand, at least a bit, what makes them work - I hope that will open your eyes and you'll stop being a sheep. PS (If you came this far, I am really interested in what you think about this) How do you explain the rotation of the stars, when you take long exposure shots of them? In the northern hemisphere the stars appear to rotate counterclockwise, while in the southern hemisphere they rotate clockwise - how does that work in a flat earth model?

[@idontcare7961]

@@voom6996 A sheep calling others sheep, lol you are brainwashed religious believer. Globe is religion and you love it so dearly. Large bodies of water at rest do not curve, never did and never will. You have no evidence of the globe lie, only blind faith that your owners wouldnt lie to you. Do your own measurements and you will see seas are completely flat.

[@slashhack1463]

It is actually not practical to do own measurements, I guess. Let us assume that I do not believe in NASA as well or any other space agencies. I mean the earth could be flat to an observer on the ground, but it can also be curved. I can assume that the world is just too big that the curvature is not at all steep and noticeable. Moreover, it can also be assumed that even the Earth is curved, it does not mean it is circular... It could be elliptical or a bit odd where some parts are less curved than the other which means other areas appear more flat. This could affect accurate measurement. Nevertheless, I only learn to lean more on science, but I do not fully discredit supernatural explanation, because they explain how the world works better like the seasonal changes, the phases of the moon, the changes in constellations, and the day and night. I am trying to assess a flat earth model where these things would work but I cannot arrive to a possible explanation other than by supernatural means or possibly challenging how technologies we take advantage everyday work. This includes why we need multiple cellphone towers. The thing is the globe model seems to prove more things. I may be wrong. But I guess it is best to focus on the things that the one truth(flat or curved) can do or can explain.

[@slashhack1463]

Kindly, forgive me with my grammar. If anything comes out misleading due to incorrect grammar. Please let me know and thank you for letting me know.

[@CUDAbuster]

I am glad to discover these videos. Well prepared, illustrated and explained. The lecturer is engaging. Reenergizing my interest in physics after several years of no longer needing to study the subject matter, it is interesting to revisit it from a non-academic perspective.

[@patricialauriello3805]

Doctor you have solid arguments. Thank you for making it clear. Glad you calmed down since the last video. You were gluing people to buses.

[@warshipsdd-2142]

It is a delight the way you parse the arguments to educate. Well done!

[@mohammedj2941]

Sabine committed a huge sin. How is it possible to talk about macroscopic examples of quantum effects without mentioning superconductivity!

[@katherinetempleton1360]

Sabine, thank you for another wonderful video. You have a gift for making complex topics understandable to us “average” people.

[@matoatlantis]

Thank you! I was wondering if somebody did the experiment similar to one on Canary Islands. I can imagine myself being there super excited seeing that experiment live. Your videos are one of those that keep my interest into this topic.

[@stylis666]

_"I can imagine myself being there super excited seeing that experiment live. "_ Me too, but maybe not stand in front of the particles next time, okay, it messes with the measurements :p You'll perhaps be less excited, but we could put you outside in the sun; that should get your particles moving.

[@mobatyoutube]

Thank you for an interesting presentation generating some interesting comments. I do note that at 7:12 you explain we don't see our personal quantum effects because "they are so small". So back to "small" in relation to QM.

[@wholenutsanddonuts5741]

Don’t forget that we can see through our transparent corneas due to quantum mechanics, and that photosynthesis (the very basis of life) depends on quantum effects. These are pretty macro bits of life too. :)

[@jamestheotherone742]

Where the QM is used is still at the unobservable atomic level.

[@jorgepeterbarton]

Genetics is about something very small, DNA. But we can see the larger effects. Doesn't stop it being about a complex molecule and biochemistry.

[@hvanmegen]

I love this channel, this format and Dr. Hossenfelder. These video's are high impact, easily digestable and straight to the point without the bullshit.. and she asks and answers GREAT questions like in this video! Bravo! 👍👍

[@astronomiskungdom8479]

At 5:10 , the animation shows the islands Tenerife and Gran Canaria (with it's largest town, Las Palmas), not the islands Tenerife and La Palma. It's a common mix up/confusion...

[@rolyfisher9137]

Astronomisk Ungdom So all her conclusions must therefore be suppressed as fruit of a poisoned tree! D

[@Davidsasz1239]

It's more confusing than that: Las Palmas is a province consisting of the 3 eastern islands (Gran Canaria, Fuerteventura and Lanzarote). Las Palmas de Gran Canaria is the capital of Gran Canaria, and La Palma is the westernmost island.

[@morpheus6749]

@@rolyfisher9137 Yes. This is physics. Accuracy matters.

[@DBuilder1977]

Wow! You are in our mind! Every question you ask is the question I asked every time!!! BRILIANT!!!

[@semmering1]

You host are really a dieffrent physics channel, I do like this very much.

[@Earwaxfire909]

Sabine, I wish I had a teacher like you when I was introduced to quantum mechanics! What text books would you recommend we read to learn more? Also, I would like to mention super-fluidity, superconductivity, Wannier periodic crystal potentials, and the Hall effect among others which are macroscopic quantum phenomenon. And of course Black holes too...

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

"Men substitute words for reality and then talk about the words." Edwin Armstrong.

[@pixeldusty]

True. But words are important. Specifically how things get lost in translation by misinterpreting words.

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

@@pixeldusty Words often have several differing definitions. This is further complicated by the etymological meaning(s), which is almost always different than the dictionary definitions. Then you have legalese which is an entirely different language which uses the same exact words as common language, but the definition is different from both the dictionary and the etymological meanings. For something that is supposed to create understanding, it sure seems to do the exact opposite by design.

[@pixeldusty]

Exactly my point. The earth has been around for a long time with many paths and stories overlapping, it was bound to and designed to get complicated.

[@stephenpuryear]

Dr. Hossenfelder, I think that this is your strongest video of all the ones that I have had the pleasure to view. I find it ironic that it arrived (in my feed at least) right after your last video in which you were frothing at the mouth and shooting sparks about people who say "Follow the science". For me, your presentation had the effect of helping to unify my daily experience and my reading of QM literature. This puts you up there with people like Feynman who said about QM: "There's a lot of room down there". It appears that down there and up here share more than we thought. Thanks again for this unique, crucial perspective!

[@CaptainJeoy]

This is a really needed restructuring of thought; Quantum mechanics is the physics of everyday thing.

[@danyael777]

What totally flipped my brain was the thought that for several decades now we have to apply quantum mechanics to further experiment on quantum mechanics.^^

[@KhalilEstell]

You did a great job in explaining this. This video really solidified the fact that quantum effects occur at larger scales. Thank you.

[@kaansancaktarmusic]

You say without quantum mechanics electrons would fall to the nucleus by loosing energy, I think this creates a misunderstanding. Its better to say without q.m we cannot explain why the electron doesnt fall on to the nucleus, but then we would assume a planetry model. Its complicated the point I want to make is we should make it clear that things dont happen because of scientific theories but whitout them we cant explain this or that phenomena. Other than that great videos, keep up the good work.

[@vijayraghav7870]

Exactly .....Like very big and warm.....We learnt this actually in De broglie wavelength.... actually we cannot observe these aftermath.... QUANTUM MECHANICS is the law of Universe!!!!! Very nice explanation teacher 👌

[@eugeneleroux1842]

Thank you for this informative presentation on such a difficult subject.

[@Rofl890]

great vid! People always like to put them into categories (in this case: quantum world versus out world), when in reality true categories seldom exist

[@volfan911]

That's a bingo.

[@gashery]

Another exceptionally clear science communication. Such a fresh wind in a field of science usually entangled in mysticism and general drivel. Thank you 👍

[@KeithCooper-Albuquerque]

Another great video, Sabine! Lovely dress as well. I really am learning a lot about quantum mechanics - thanks so much!

[@TheVincent0268]

I like the example that is given in the book QED by Richard Feynman where he explains the partial reflection of glass. Every time I look at a window at night I remember that example.

Thank you, Sabine! It would be great of you could create a video to explain quantum entanglement, and why two entangled particles don't share information when one is measured

[@morpheus6749]

Communicate, not share. And they do communicate information. It just can't be used as information because the other side has no idea _when_ to measure.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Great explanation, answering many questions, I carried with me for some time.

[@x_abyss]

It always amazes me how the probability of electron orbitals looks like spherical harmonics. Thanks Sabine.

[@johnm.v709]

Smallest kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJ_Op6J_fd-nhtk

[@EliSantana]

The resemblance is coincidental. Don't read anything into it.

[@starseed96]

Electron shells are indeed determined by spherical harmonics, as they are waves wrapped around a sphere.

[@AlexanderShamov]

​@@EliSantana No, it's not. And it's not just the atom. Any system with spherical symmetry behaves like that.

[@ps200306]

Those images aren't photos. They're models constructed using the mathematics of spherical harmonics. It's hardly surprising that they look like spherical harmonics.

[@ahmad_serendipity]

The fact that Dr. Sabine mocks herself and others whom she's clearly fed up with their gulible remarks and "Naah!" presumptuous attitudes ! Is cute and funny in itself !! 😊😅 And ... This was amazing and mind bending , as usual ! ❤️🙏🏼

[@markymarkus8536]

such impressive understanding and communication of physics and more. dispelling any preconceived absoluteness of the field by presenting the pros and cons. liken to physics what is mosart to music. i would like to put her mind to a general theory of viruses to begin to resolve the problem. i hope someday i can attend a live presentation.

[@philplante6524]

The very small value (~10^-34) of Planck's Constant (h) determines the scale at which quantum effects are directly noticeable. The physicist George Gamow wrote a series of books many years ago entitled "Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland" about a fictional world where Planck's constant was much larger, making quantum effects noticeable on everyday scales. For example, when walking through a doorway, you would diffract. It may be a bit dated but it's an entertaining read and helps to better understand the quantum world. Gamow, BTW, was one of the founders of the Big Bang Theory and co-wrote the paper predicting the existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. He was also apparently quite a character, the Feynman of his day.

[@seanmcmurphy4744]

Thanks for mentioning that! I really want to read that book

[@PSRPulsar]

If you accelerate yourself to almost speed of light (c), your size (length) would contract due to Lorentz effect L'=L*sqrt(1-(V/C)^2). With enough speed (c->V) eventually you shall be of size of nuclei. Would you be actually able to see electors/protons from inside?

[@carlorossi2788]

for v> c the length is an imaginary number then the j operator intervenes an imaginary universe? it has been hypothesized.... the speech would be very broad but I could expand it.......

[@irokosalei5133]

As I understand, quantum mechanics describe behaviours that are most significant at lowest levels of observations, whichs makes it the underlying framework for the current macroscopic descriptions of reality. The subtleties of QM remain true at every level, but gradually go unnoticeable as systems raise in size, and get replaced by simpler description. But like a butterfly effect, the subtle differences it holds with classical mechanics allow to work out macroscopic effects otherwise unexplained.

[@EliSantana]

My new favorite Sabine video.

[@jasonmarktobin]

Another great video! Thank you for providing such great content!

[@ryanjbuchanan]

Brilliant; thanks for clearing up this misconception professor!

[@danyael777]

Very good talk on that subject. I might add the fact that they did the Double-slit experiment with "Buckyballs".

[@Robert08010]

There is only one thing I disagree with here. I still don't see any correlation between planets in orbits and electrons in orbits; specifically the idea of shells. You can say "Oh well the shells are just really small and really close together but all you have done is eliminated the need for them altogether. If you can do that, then you have to explain why atomic shells are so big relatively speaking. Why can't they be tiny continuous increments too? Why do we never see multiple planets in the same shell like we presume to see in atoms? Please understand, I'm not against the question. I've considered this myself but it just doesn't seem to fit.

[@lezhilo772]

I think superconductivity would've been a nice example of macroscopic quantum effects for this video. Particularly quantum levitation which if I remember correctly, relies on the quantization of magnetic flux, can be demonstrated on a macroscopic length scale, and definitely looks super weird.

[@seanmcmurphy4744]

I was just going to mention that but you beat me to it. Another quantum effect which displays “weirdness” at macroscopic scales is superfluidity.

[@rmehta54]

I have been watching your videos for quite some time. It clears up my misunderstanding converting it into understanding. Kind of wave function collapse.

[@rv706]

@Sabine Hossenfelder : What about superfluid helium? We can say it's... "big" too, can't we?

[@onehitpick9758]

That's dark... really dark. But it's also really bright, and it might matter.

[@xspotbox4400]

Must say i kinda love your work Sabine, it makes you see things from another perspective. If reality would be easy to understand, we wouldn't look for explanations because one theory would already explain everything and human species would became all powerful. I'm just not sure about orbits, sun doesn't stand still in place but must also follow some inertial path, emerging from motion of near by solar systems. Massive objects tend to stick with rules of motion, but empty space is not determined in advance, so those small adjustments must be traveling inside the objects and produce divergence over shortest path of least resistance they were on before. But any other path is longer than ideal one, perhaps inertia is accumulated somehow and this process literally stop planets at place, like thrown objects hang in the air for a bit before they start to fall back down again. I can imagine many pulses like that each time when slope of sun's trajectory get significantly changed.

[@steffenschuldenzucker1692]

These Videos are so cool! I particularly like how you assume that your audience is actually smart. For my taste, it could be like 50% more depth. For instance, I didn't quite catch *why* those phase shifts leading to decoherence occur. Unrelated bonus point: I really like your backgrounds and especially your outfits. I was just zapping through this playlist & it looks like a little fashion show. 😁

[@mcsquared4319]

QM is a theory of small objects only from an experimental point of view because of the increasing difficulty of the measurements and calculations corresponding to an exponential of the number of particles involved. Probabilities could also be just an experimental point of view. Are all QM interpretations consistent with the "big" picture?

[@Vardaris]

So, particles vs larger bodies are like heading to the city centre alone vs heading to the city centre along with other people as a group. If you are alone the path you may follow is far less predictable since you can change your mind any time and go there however you like, while, if there are other people with you, it is more difficult to change your behaviour on a whim, since the rest of the group may disagree to follow you and your path becomes more linear and predictable. That is how I got it at least.

[@johnm.v709]

Lone one kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJ_Op6J_fd-nhtk

[@bowiebrewster6266]

I have to say i’m bot convinced by your arguments, of course QM effects macroscopic thing but all of the effects “start” at the atom scale which is clear because every explanation starts with atom/photon/electron does such and such and that effects such and such.

[@bIametheniIe]

Are the jump cuts in this video a new addition? I haven't noticed them in other videos Sabine has made. I find jump cuts distracting.

[@seanspartan2023]

I try to keep my wave function as non-localized as possible to keep the people around me guessing. I like to keep friends and family on their toes 🙃

[@bookashkin]

But fail every time they measure you?

[@Inmate005]

Most people who say quantum mechanics works on small scales have no misunderstanding, but use a very intuitive and useful simplification. The "counterarguments" can be summarized as follows: Atoms are not small because the sun is made of atoms.

[@1.4142]

6:25 How far we've come

[@marcelinogalicia7612]

First of all, wonderful clarification on the big and small Quantum mechanics Sabine. what I'm about to talk about is hypothetical but just for the sake of conversation, I'm going to say it is true. A large number of people have been noticing changes in our reality, like changes in product names, a book titled spellings change. those are the small ones, now for the bigger ones (the Great Wall of Pakistan, and the Great Wall of India.) How is this possible? In school, we were taught about (the Great Wall of China) and you could see it from space. and these other walls are just as large. there is a man from Canada Dr.Geordie Rose founded D-Wave Quantum computers, anyway he stated that if we were smart enough, we could go into these parallel universes and pull their resources into ours. in conclusion, I find this topic most interesting.

[@maalikserebryakov]

I also remember the Story of nelson mandela@: death in an apartheid prison being taught in my school. Then years later Im told he survived that period and actually died in 2012

[@Rob060870]

Very informative, thank you. Great channel 👍

[@T.H.W.O.T.H]

I'd be really interested in a physicists explanation of the quantum nature of vision. How is the wavefunction of the photon collapsed in the retina when it's position is uncertain until that point? I've often wondered about this...

[@clmasse]

The quantum nature of vision is classical. This is physics, the simplest theory that works is the one to be used. I often recall that physics is an experimental science. Only in metaphysics do we bother about the first cause of everything.

[@T.H.W.O.T.H]

Hi @Claude Massé, thanks for taking the time to reply 👍 I've asked this question of physicists a number of times and still am no clearer about the process. Perhaps I'm asking the wrong question - at least that's how it feels a lot of the time? Though I understand the biology and chemistry of the eye quite well, my understanding of the physical/quantum aspects of the photon is somewhat less secure. It seems to me that we take vision for granted - it's a simple brute fact as it were. After covering the anatomy of the eye Biology text books explaining vision usually start with something like, "When a photon strikes the retina..." and continue from there. Physics text books on the other hand talk about the photon as a as a timeless, massless particle/wave that exist in a state of quantum fluxation. My interest is in the intersection of the two. Not all photons which strike the cornea enter the eye, not all photon which enter the eye strike the retina, not all photon which strike the retina strike the the so-called light-sensitive (photon-sensitive) cells of the eye, not all photons which strike the light-sensitive cells of the eye initiate the neuro-chemical reactions which ultimately results in vision. My presumption is, therefore, that the part of vision which the Biology books do not talk about - the collapsing of the photon's wavefunction - is something that renders vision quantum in nature, and as such one bound to the nuances, variances and uncertainties of the quantum realm. By this light (!) one might perhaps also note, or at least presume, that the chlorophyll reaction in the leaves of plants must similarly quantum in nature - and yet the photon does not exist in either time or place until the wavefunction collapses. In this context I feel that saying that the quantum nature of vision is classical has little exploratory power. Indeed, it seems only another way to restate the obvious, that vision is a brute fact - it just is. This is not a criticism of your statement, more a plea for more information and/or some pointers in the right direction. It's the 'hows' which I wish to understand not the 'whats' as it were. If vision is, at a fundamental level, a process which relies on quantum characteristics, behaviours and interactions then it means that quantum physics is having a massive impact on the way we look at and understand the world around us (both literally and figuratively speaking). I thought this idea interposed nicely with the theme of this week's video. As a severely sight-impaired visual artists this question has nagged away at me for quite a long time now. In fact it has been the motivation for finding out and understanding a lot more about human anatomy, neurology as well as physics and mathematics. If anyone reading this has any pointers they would be greatly appreciated! 🍻

[@clmasse]

@@T.H.W.O.T.H The elementary process that happens in vision is the transition from one level to another one in an atom, by the absorption of a photon. This is necessarily an elementary process, with always the same used amount of energy, which is related the the frequency by the Plank formula. The full quantum theory is not needed here. The details of this process are well explained in the Berkeley physics course on quantum mechanics. A consequence is that when the luminosity is very low, there is so called quantum noise, because of the discretisation and the randomness of quantum phenomena.

[@joseestevez6581]

Hi, There is a minor mistake un this excellent video. I suppose that others have already pointed out that La Palma is not the shown in the video. La Palma, is the island in the northwest area of the Canaries. The institute of astrophysics has its telescopes there, and also in Tenerife, which is correctly situated in the video. The island that is shown here is Gran Canaria, and the mistake, which is made ofently comes from the name of its main city, Las Palmas

[@VoodooD0g]

your sun explanation is like saying "atoms are not about small things, because the earth is made out of a lot of atoms and the earth is big" quantum mechanics is for small things and your sun (and the second) explenation confirms exactly that.

[@tnb178]

So, it is for small things only. It's just that applying things on a small scale many times can add up to have large effects.

[@tnb178]

@@mark_huisjes are there large scale effects that can't be explained without qm? Yes, almost everything. Matter would not exist as we know it. But it's like saying atoms are not about the small because you are made of it and you wouldn't exist without them. Well yes but they are about the small.

[@tnb178]

Btw. your examples are excellent ones that SH could have mentioned

[@jameshughes3014]

@@mark_huisjes a bucket of sand is large. A grain of sand is small. This is a silly argument

[@expchrist]

@sabine you definitely should have mentioned liquid hydrogen superfluidity and superconductivity! Superfluidity is due to the quantum mechanical properties of hydrogen manifesting themselves at macroscopic levels.

[@Davidsasz1239]

Greetings from the Canary Islands, Sabine! I'm not a physicist but love your content and learning about physics. Saw your interview on Better Left Unsaid with Curt Jaimungal and would like to learn more about superdeterminism and how does it reach the conclusion that everything in the universe is subtly interconnected. Is that the concept of "global hidden variables"? I also think that you managed the question of consciousness very well.

[@wobuzhidaoification]

Another lovely video, Sabine. Thank you. Do you have any intention to make a video on entropy one day - particularly the second law? Thank you.

[@volleyballschlaeger]

And how is entropy related to black holes? You can enter the event horizon but never leave?

[@armandos.rodriguez6608]

In the end all things in the Einstein’s Relativity are tied to Quantum Mechanics,which are the likely to be the basics of all that exists,as well as Relativity which is top end of the system,so as our atomic and molecular world make all things as they are,there all tied together as threads make up the material that makes a set of clothing or all the parts that make a skyscraper what it is,that any way seems to make most sense to me in my vision of why the world is as it is. Again you make science available even to the uninformed,or the magic of life. Thanks Again.

[@david_porthouse]

I would suggest that for objects heavier than the Planck mass, the Schroedinger theory be replaced by classical Brownian motion on the scale of Planck's constant, or the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle be replaced by the Fuerth Uncertainty Principle. Nothing can have a Compton wavelength shorter than the Planck length, but everything has an Uncertainty Principle. This is not a complete solution of the mystery of quantum mechanics, but it does tell us roughly what to expect for large objects. For a gas in a cylinder confined by a piston, the piston can be regarded as being in classical Brownian motion. This will wreck any Poincare cycle and allow us to apply Boltzmann's H-theorem without worrying about Loschmidt's or Zermelo's objections. The molecules can be thought of as being in Lucretian motion as a crude representation of quantum mechanics. Underlying all this on the microscopic scale is tachyonic Brownian motion which really is irreducibly random and spoils any wave with a wavelength shorter than that Compton wavelength.

[@tjejojyj]

This brilliant video was brought to us by Brilliant.

[@shevonsilva]

You are a good scientist and I disagree with this description; this is the biggest problem with many scientists except a few like Newton, Einstein, Tesla, etc: the problem is a lack of knowledge in full spectrum of knowledge. Anyway, these videos are really good and honest review of the subject.

[@HidekazuOki]

This is a BRILLIANT video!! :)

[@monkerud2108]

Infact as you say, the consistency of all macroscopic physics is dependent on quantum mechanics. As of right now at least, i think internal consistency is key, and it doesnt mean you need a theory of everything necessarily, but some theory that is more internally consistent.

[@phoule76]

I hadn't heard gravitational waves referred to as gravitational radiation before, but it makes sense. Thanks for the great analogy.

[@kokomanation]

From which particles is spacetime made of ? Or we have no idea on this ?

[@bradleyp3655]

You, Dr. Matt O'Dowd of PBS Time Space, Dr. Don Lincoln of Fermilab, and Dr Beck Smethurst, I'll even add Neil deGrasse Tyson into this foray. My understanding of quantum physics, astrophysicist , even loosely quantum cosmology and as been quite a journey. Each in their own way explain these subject quite eloquently.

[@robharwood3538]

He's not a scientist himself, but you may like Anton Petrov's channel. He covers recent findings in various fields related to astronomy, but also including things about Earth itself and the possibilities of life developing independently in the universe. I like him more and more because he covers actual research papers and reports on them very well, sticking to the scientific findings, but he's studied enough (originally studied to become astrophysicist, but left academia before finishing; still an avid follower of the research) to be able to explain advanced research papers for science enthusiasts like us. I have found him very credible and humble over the years, so I'd recommend his channel for anyone interested in space and sciences. 🌌🪐🤓😊

[@mandar.deodhar]

Nice video. I have two questions- 1. About planet system example you mentioned. For a very large observer - for whom the planet system is like an atom, will the planet system behave like a quantum system where position of earth around sun is not fixed but can be given by a probability distribution? 2. How energy is not continuous but quantised leads to nothing in universe is fixed but everything is probability? This may be a separate video altogether.

[@MichaelPiz]

Love your videos. And love chuckling my way through the comments. :)

[@ASLUHLUHC3]

3:25 I thought things become truly localised upon measurement. And aren't large objects 'measured' almost immediately by their environment?

[@happyhome41]

I would say "Brilliant" but that's already taken. So I am pleased with this video, brought back down to my level (#5 left me in the dark - my deficit, not yours).

[@martifingers]

Clear and engaging as always Sabine. But can you perhaps say more about the "large scale" quantum effects? Are we really saying here that a molecule of 2000 atoms can, say, demonstrate wave like behaviour in a double slit experiment? I think many of us would find it really hard to imagine this. OK electrons may be "wavy" (although that's hard enough to visualise) but molecules are huge in comparison. A molecule that big cannot possibly be in a state of superimposition, can it? I am probably way off in my understanding here but another video on this would be great.

[@diqnu]

Isn't the quantum weirdness of three polarization filters one of the best examples of macroscopic quantum effects?

[@sleepy314]

I love that demonstration. But it is still the photons that are being affected. I still try to walk through walls sometimes, because the probability is non-zero that I can.

[@diqnu]

@@sleepy314 keep tryin' 😅

[@michal.gawron]

I think I have an example of a big quantum thing - an antenna. Radio-frequency photons have quite small energy and very long wavelengths, measured in cm, 10s of cms or even more. And they need to be captured by similarly big antennas. Some antennas, for instance patch antennas, are designed - using essentially quantum mechanics - to capture photons eg. from a certain direction better than from others. Those are classical-size objects that are, well, quantum-mechanical devices.

[@kurbads74]

What is wave function?

[@JonTheNativeSpeaker]

I could listen to you talk forever. Really.

[@rossmanmagnus]

she my personal iEinstein

[@pumpthegamer]

Sure, I agree that QM gives us a more fundamental understanding of everything . Magnets are also very good examples of macroscopic objects that retain quantum effects on large scales. A key concept for the manifestation of quantum effects on scales bigger than the coherence length is emergence, which would make a good subject for another video:). But, there is something with the logic of your argument that still does not sit right with me. Just because a theory provides a more fundamental description, it does not mean that it is an effective theory for understanding processes that happen over very different scales. By that logic, one could make a claim that hurricanes and storms are described at a fundamental level by QED. Maybe, but then so what? We still hydrodynamic models to tell us more useful about the atmospheric mess that surrounds us. Thanks for the video. I follow you with pleasure and enjoy all the content that you put out there, even when I don't necessarily agree with everything.

[@narfwhals7843]

The point isn't that you have to or should use QFT to model everything, but than you can. QFT doesn't stop working because your system got over some size limit, it just gets more and more complicated to account for all interactions. It is "effective" because it works, it isn't "efficient" because it's ridiculously tedious to the point of exceeding our computing capacities. But it is possible. But then there is of course the question of gravity.

[@calvingrondahl1011]

Thank you Sabine...

[@fuseteam]

if "orbitals" are electrons in superposition then so covalence bonds- which appear to be sustained by an energy barrier but then again breaking covalence bonds does result in superposition being broken as each individual atom still has their electrons in superposition.......

[@ivanniyeha4229]

If so why do we need general relativity ,it is ridiculous you can quantize planetary orbits is it for show

[@perlindholm4129]

Theory guess - Draw a circle many time around the nucleus by hand and you see you cant get it 100% right. The number of circles don't overlap 100%. This is a general problem. So this loss problem gives an update assignment to the quantum particles. Leave or join the nucleus and take some energy with you. The probability is the function field from a machine learning function. Whereby the nucleus can nearfield ?teleport the electron to the right position with the quantum particles as input data. // Per

[@mister_chispa]

5:16 There is an awkward mistake here. The islands shown in the video are Tenerife and Gran Canaria, not Tenerife and La Palma. But despite of that detail, great video!

[@r.w178]

I have a question about the nature of the atom: When I measure the electron, it is in a specific place. Why doesn’t it fall to the core then? Or if it orbits, why doesn’t it emit radiation? Is this all because of heisenberg? But only because we don’t know the exact momentum and place at once, doesn’t mean, electromagnetism will not apply? How is this to explain?

[@jamestheotherone742]

Thank you for doing this video. Sabine; "It's not just a theory for small things." Uses nothing but small things as examples. Here is a better one: From your frame of reference my position on the Earth's surface is in superposition with the peak of my wavefunction probability distribution somewhere in Southeastern North America. If you were to know (observe) my address, my waveform collapses to 1. So you could calculate this property just the same as you could a sub-atomic particle.

[@JEBAYLES]

A ‘potential’ in entanglement is instant since it is not electromagnetic where ‘electromagnetic’ does set the action to the speed of light. Also, there is no limit in speed since it is not in local-space but is non-local.

[@MrDino1953]

Neutron stars are fully quantum macroscopic objects. I’m surprised they were not used as an example.

[@DrOSami]

4:52 Sabine: you want weird? Me: hell yes!

[@robertmuller1523]

@Sabine Your degree of focus and articulation is really astonishing. How long does it take you to prepare for such a video?

[@ivangalik7848]

wait. i dont geit it. through black body radiation an object gradually loses its heat energy until it is close to 0 kelvin and stops radiating anymore. Likewise it loses energy by radiating off gravitational waves? so eventually the mass will be reduced and energy lost in the universe? please explain to me

[@monkerud2108]

Also i think the easier example is a black holes horizon. The horizon radiated because of quantum effects and can in principle be as large as you please, also the same kind of think happens with the cmb and unruh radiation, these phenomena are as oarge as you want or as large as the observable univese. :)