The Uncertainty Principle: What Does It Mean, How Does It Work?

Try out my quantum mechanics course (and many others on math and science) on brilliant.org/sabine. You can get started for free, and the first 200 will get 20% off the annual premium subscription.
This video comes with a quiz that lets you check how much you remember: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/...
Correction to what's on the screen at 9 mins 35 seconds: In the lower equation, the h-bar is missing. Sorry about that!
Correction to what I say at 3 mins 39: it should have been phosphorescent materials, not fluorescent. (Same basic principle, but the lifetime of the states is longer for the former than for the latter.)
What is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, how does it work, and what does it mean? Is it really a quantum principle or is not just fourier transforms? I'll sort it out for you.
👉 Transcript on Patreon ➜ / sabine
💌 Sign up for my weekly science newsletter. It's free! ➜ sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle...
📖 Check out my new book "Existential Physics" ➜ existentialphysics.com/
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
kzbin.info/door/1yN...
00:00 Introduction
00:19 Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
02:00 What Does Quantum Uncertainty Mean?
04:44 Is Uncertainty All About Waves?
09:02 What's Quantum About It?
11:50 Recap
13:14 Check Out My Quantum Mechanics Course
#science #physics #quantum

[@SabineHossenfelder]

At 9:35 in the lower inequality, the h-bar is missing (facepalm). Super sorry about that 😥 Don't get confused, what I say is correct.

[@averagegamer9513]

Thanks for clarifying.

[@garyproffitt5941]

She is so perfect & beautiful Sabine Hossenfelder😊👍

[@barryon8706]

I'm sure the h-bar was somewhere, but since we know it's velocity was zero...😀 Don't worry about it.

[@michaelsommers2356]

Since all constants equal 1, it doesn't really matter.

[@WoziduranJahemter]

Uhmm, maybe edit in the video, put an overlapped correction and note. No worries!

[@mgx9383]

Quantum uncertainty means I will never be sure if I understand quantum mechanics.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

THINGS MODERN SCIENCE DOES NOT APPARENTLY KNOW: (copy and paste from my files): Consider the following: a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. (And nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and certain mathematical constants can come from the Standard Model Of Particle Physics). b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually expand. c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually vary. d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can expand and time can vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could vary in actual reality?

[@SharkBabySeal]

So you DO UNDERSTAND quantum mechanics

[@ratvibe]

@Joseph Wood ..any citations?

[@64kernel]

But if you do understand qm then you can be sure you don't understand qm.

[@RSProduxx]

@@64kernel how can you be certain?

[@hzdvb]

Great video but I have a minor correction: You mentioned that fluorescent materials maintain an excited state for several hours. However, that would be phosphorescent materials. Fluorescent emission describes the near-instantaneous decay you mentioned before, while phosphorescence happens on longer timescales. This a very minor nitpick I know, but I couldn't help myself ;)

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Ah, dang, you are right of course! Sorry about that. Will put a correction in the info. Thanks for pointing out!

[@rbettsx]

I thought florescence was particularly the absorption of light from outside the visible spectrum and its re-emittance within the visible spectrum. Maybe that's just a rephrasing.

[@tarco12000]

@@SabineHossenfelder Indeed. For example the fluorescence of tryptophan (an amino acid) is on the order of 10 e-9 sec at room temperature.

[@EleneDOM]

That's just what I was going to say! Probably the only part of this I understand well enough to make a correction..... But at 8:48, Sabine says "space" while the graphic says "time." Is that an error or am I just misunderstanding?

[@petevenuti7355]

Of course you did that on purpose so us commenters had something to bite into.

[@jcpmac1]

It's amazing to me that with the enormous number of videos on KZbin dealing with this subject not one of them offers as clear or detailed an explanation as Sabine's. So a huge thank you to Sabine for taking the time to really dig into the uncertainty principle and to clarify it in detail in a way that others so often don't - or can't.

[@antonystringfellow5152]

I love her honest, down-to-Earth, common sense approach too! Too many physicists seem more like mystics than scientists. Many of them have highly popular KZbin channels too.

[@b43xoit]

@@antonystringfellow5152 She's good and I also recommend Leonard Susskind's lecture on entanglement. Even though "entanglement" is in the title, it's really an introduction to QM, using easy math (no diffeq). He begins with what would seem to be the simplest case, measuring the spin on an electron prepared with a magnetic field. The result is only binary, spin up or spin down. But he uses this to show in general how the calculation goes.

[@hyperduality2838]

CERTAINTY (predictability, syntropy) is dual to UNCERTAINTY (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. The time domain is dual to the frequency domain -- Fourier analysis. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat SUPERPOSITION -- Duality! Being is dual to non being -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat). Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato & Socrates. "Entropy is a measure of randomness" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order. Randomness (entropy, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, certainty). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Signals (patterns, structure, syntropy) are dual to noise (lack of patterns, orderless, entropy) -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Duality creates reality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@hyperduality2838]

@@b43xoit Spin up is dual to spin down -- the Dirac equation.

[@Lucius_Chiaraviglio]

Don Lincoln's explanation (on the Fermilab channel, from a couple of years ago) is also very good.

[@martinstent5339]

It’s funny, but I have been working with RF and doing Fourier transforms on Rf signals for decades, and also learning about quantum physics for many years as well, but I never brought the 2 things together in my mind until now! Thank you Sabine! I am looking at the world with different eyes now!

[@franklittle8124]

And in geophysics, on seismic signals.

[@dggeers]

The sampling theorem is also a manifestation of the "uncertainty principle" (\Delta t . \Delta u = 1/2) which just follows from the theory of Fourier Transforms. Interestingly, the impulse response of a circuit corresponds to a propagator in quantum electrodynamics. They are both Green's functions 🙂 I haven't thought about this since my grad student days (30 years ago) but if you look at the vertex functions you can formulate a matching LC network (i.e., the impulse response will have the same form as the propagator). I don't think I've seen this written up anywhere...

[@Verlamian]

I'm afraid that's sad rather than funny because now you're looking at the world through the cloudy, distorting lens of the typical (meaning quantum foundations and mathematical physics naive) physicist. A better informed physicist wouldn't have told you that particles (sometimes) "behave like waves" (the "werewave" misconception). Instead they would've explained what a ("pure", vector) quantum state for a particle really is from the modern mathematically and foundationally informed perspective - a perspective that doesn't lead to naively and semi-classically confusing it with the waves every physicist first learns about. In this uncertainty-focused context they might've told you about the important distinction between preparation and measurement uncertainty, and certainly would've pointed out that uncertainty relations exist among observables that aren't Fourier transform pairs as part of a _correct_ explanation of its origins and how and why it's different than classical uncertainty.

[@martinstent5339]

@@Verlamian OK, but that’s really not what I was thinking about. I know about sync pulses. Short bursts of a particular frequency band. I know that when you look at their frequency spectrum, the shorter they are, the more their frequency spectrum is spread out. Now I have connected the uncertainty principle as a kind of logical necessity of light coming in discrete packets. I don't know about all that other stuff. Everyone understands the world on their own terms. Even you!

[@Verlamian]

@@martinstent5339 They / we all do but there are correct understandings and incorrect understandings! That semi-classical analogical "particle as wave" understanding of QM with its accompanying treatment of the uncertainty principle(s) is incorrect. It's a fragile analogy that breaks down as soon as it meets systems of more than one particle in ordinary particle QM* and leads to further confusion when QFT is introduced. Happily, a correct understanding is conceptually very clear and easily attained, involving no more than a revision of the essentials of the classical theory in modern terms (esp. symmetries) together with an introduction to algebraic probability (a generalisation of classical probability which is what we now understand that quantum theory really is). * Because states are functions on configuration space rather than on 'ordinary' space or spacetime.

[@amphibiousone7972]

You're wonderful at presenting physics concepts in an easy to understand way. Thank You Sabine 🙏

[@SteelBlueVision]

This video was easy to understand? This was probably the least understandable video that Sabine has made in a very long time!

[@engineeringvision9507]

@@SteelBlueVision It was extremely well explained. Try watching it a few times if you don't understand, it may help :)

[@hyperduality2838]

Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. CERTAINTY (predictability, syntropy) is dual to UNCERTAINTY (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. The time domain is dual to the frequency domain -- Fourier analysis. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat SUPERPOSITION -- Duality! Being is dual to non being -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat). Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato & Socrates. "Entropy is a measure of randomness" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order. Randomness (entropy, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, certainty). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Signals (patterns, structure, syntropy) are dual to noise (lack of patterns, orderless, entropy) -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Duality creates reality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@williamverhoef4349]

Why are you praying? She is good not god. Or perhaps you thought they were clapping hands?

[@CoNteMpTone]

shes presenting physics? i swear i watched 50 videos and i thought its standup commedy.

[@SkylersRants]

Thank you. That’s the first time I’ve ever heard this explanation.

[@DoggARithm]

Best classical example of uncertainty: Compare a long exposure night time photo to a short exposure daytime photo, and imagine trying to recreate the 3D scene in your mind based on the information in the photo. In a minutes-long exposure shot you might see car lights trailing off for miles... So in your mind's eye, the vehicles are spread out over space in that instant. Yet in principle, you can look at how bright the light trail is at any point to identify the car's average speed around that point. The brighter the light, the slower you can infer the car was moving at that point. Contrast this to a millisecond snapshot, (with approriately higher ISO, and wider aperture). Obects that are moving will tend to appear just as crisp as objects that are stationary: Their positions at the instant of the snapshot are very precisely defined... However, without added context, almost all elements in a still image appear to have the same momentum. For example, you couldn't identify the direction a volleyball was moving without looking at the players beneath it. In this sense, a classical photograph has captured the tradeoff between position and momentum. And not only that, we've demonstrated a law of thermodynamics, how more complicated physical systems have a more clearly indentifiable arrow in time than simple ones, no quantum necessary.

[@michaelblacktree]

For a layman such as myself, these videos are a godsend. Thanks! 👍

[@onogrirwin]

It's quantum mechanics - we're all laymen. Even Sabine.

[@covid19alpha2variantturboc7]

@@onogrirwin "anybody who claims to understand quantum mechanics is either lying or crazy" - Feynman It's observations like these that lead me to suspect that quantum mechanics is about as rational as astrology (or epidemiology for that matter)

[@covid19alpha2variantturboc7]

@@onogrirwin nah, I take that back. Nothing is as irrational and propaganda ridden as epidemiology.

[@RT710.]

@@covid19alpha2variantturboc7 science is a leftist lie made up by the Jews!

[@hyperduality2838]

CERTAINTY (predictability, syntropy) is dual to UNCERTAINTY (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. The time domain is dual to the frequency domain -- Fourier analysis. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat SUPERPOSITION -- Duality! Being is dual to non being -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat). Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato & Socrates. "Entropy is a measure of randomness" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order. Randomness (entropy, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, certainty). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Signals (patterns, structure, syntropy) are dual to noise (lack of patterns, orderless, entropy) -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Duality creates reality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@enric-x]

We should insist that it should be called the indeterminacy principle, because it is not about uncertainty. This is a bad translation to English that stuck; in the original German, and also in French, Spanish, the concept used is indeterminacy. Unfortunately, a lot of translations of popularisation books are form English and "uncertainty" is used for those translations (at least in Latin languages in Europe)

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Never thought about it, but you're right.

[@theOtherNism]

I believe Heisenberg's original term was 'ungenauigkeit'. Doesn't that literally translate to something like 'unprecision'? In that case, 'indeterminacy' is also not quite right. Or is it just my poor knowledge of German?

[@Merilix2]

@@theOtherNism I never heard "Ungenauigkeit" in this context. Even if Heisenberg may have used it somewhere, this would be misleading because "inaccurate" is surely not meant. Uncertain vs indeterminacy? The former refers to observer knowledge which allows hidden variable models, the latter to fundamental randomness. In my opinion there is no final answer yet. Some kind of determinism must be there because of the behavior of entangled particles.

But then, Sabine could not make a joke about it :) 12:20

[@mohamedkassim291]

Indeterminacy vis a vis process; uncertainty is vis a vis person. The term changes depending on reference.

[@Bassotronics]

Now I know why some voices are “Singing voices” and others not. Singing voices tend to have more even harmonics while “bad” voices tend to have more odd order harmonics. But on the other hand, if your voice is “bad” but you hit the notes well, you could still be considered a singer despite the harmonics. Like Bruce Springsteen Vs George Michael singing a slow ballad.

[@gawloandroid6869]

The Uncertainty Principle problem is well illustrated with a photographic example when using different shutter times. If the photo is sharp (fast shutter), we can precisely determine the position of an object, but the velocity remains uncertain. Conversely, when the photo is blurred due to a longer shutter time, the velocity becomes better defined, but the position becomes blurred, thus uncertain.

[@DavidEsp1]

Except if the object is stationary? Remembering that the thing is, not its velocity, but the precision to which any velocity of it can be measured.

[@lrwerewolf]

You are such an excellent science communicator, and your commitment to Popperian falsifiability and experiment is a breath of fresh air in an era when frontier physics has gotten lost in the math. Many thanks to you for your commitment to making complex topics accessible (and the dry with which is is delievered)!

[@ThiemoVonHernals]

Sabine, you are truly great! You really started my "passion" for physics. I am really not an expert, but can follow most of the stuff. I even appreciate your pace. and you are so funny!! I am a big fan. Kind regards and all the best from Vienna, TR

[@DoFliesCallUsWalks]

kind of adds a whole new meaning to the phrase "I know you point but I don't know where you are going with it"

[@SPDLand]

This is the first video on quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle based on which I thought for a very brief moment something clicked in my head! Its gone again, but I will cherish the moment!

[@theshowmanuk]

I have no uncertainty that this was simply explained. Thank you Sabine.

[@charles.e.g.]

Sabine, I always come away from watching your videos feeling a little bit better informed and a little bit better educated person for it. I have learned so much from you, on topics that I thought I would never understand. Thank you for making these 15 minutes with you the most enriching and edifying 15 minutes of my week! You are a gift!! 🙏

[@hyperduality2838]

CERTAINTY (predictability, syntropy) is dual to UNCERTAINTY (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. The time domain is dual to the frequency domain -- Fourier analysis. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat SUPERPOSITION -- Duality! Being is dual to non being -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat). Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato & Socrates. "Entropy is a measure of randomness" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order. Randomness (entropy, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, certainty). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Signals (patterns, structure, syntropy) are dual to noise (lack of patterns, orderless, entropy) -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Duality creates reality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@riaanferreira2130]

I think it is safe to say this is my favorite videos from Sabine. I remember back in the day when I was still studying Electronic Engineering, one of my text books went over this same topic. I've always wondered why no youtuber ever explained this in the same way my textbook did. Thank you Sabine you made my day, keep up the good work.

[@douglasstrother6584]

This is a great presentation on the fundamental characteristics of wave packets! The association of momentum with wavenumber and energy with frequency is where the Quantum Weirdness starts. In Classical Mechanics, a system with N degrees of freedom can be represented by 2N-dimensional phase space consisting of N co-ordinates and N momenta required to describe the dynamics of the system fundamentally as a continuous, well-defined, trajectory in this 2N-dimensional space. Heisenberg's Uncertaity Priciple asserts that the trajectory of a quantum system in phase space is not fundamentally continuous and well-defined.

[@Alazsel]

Thanks! I need to watch this several times, but at least I'm having fun with your Brilliant course. Merry Christmas ⛄ 🎄

[@hyperduality2838]

CERTAINTY (predictability, syntropy) is dual to UNCERTAINTY (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. The time domain is dual to the frequency domain -- Fourier analysis. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat SUPERPOSITION -- Duality! Being is dual to non being -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat). Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato & Socrates. "Entropy is a measure of randomness" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order. Randomness (entropy, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, certainty). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Signals (patterns, structure, syntropy) are dual to noise (lack of patterns, orderless, entropy) -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Duality creates reality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@artemonstrick]

I hope Fourier Transform will be mentioned :)

[@greentape7817]

Thank you for including the part about the harmonic frequencies in the human voice! It is as good an example of a wave as anything else I suppose, but as someone with a background in linguistics, and none at all in physics, it was nice to have an example from a field of study where I have enough knowledge to feel my feet on the ground! It felt like getting an encouraging high-five as I train for a marathon! I have been watching many of your videos repeatedly, and I am comfortable with the notion that I will not suddenly understand all the principles, but rather gain a new nugget of insight every so many views, and it is gradually accumulating! Thank you for always having an open mind about the value of topics you cover and particularly for never sneering at we who study the so-called soft sciences (unless we deserved it, of course!)

[@init000]

I think the best way to understand the uncertainty principle is to imagine a childrens swing. You‘re looking at the swing from the side. The swing is in motion (swinging forwards and back). You now must decide if you want to take a single photo or a video of the swing. If you take the photo, you get an exact measurement of the position of the swing. However, from that photo alone, you cannot tell if the swing is swinging from front to back or from back to front (so the precise impulse of the swing can only be given as a probability, not a precise value). If you instead make a video then you get a precise measurement of the impulse of the swing (so you can say it‘s swinging forwards with 1,3 m/s during the measurement) but you can no longer give the precise location of the swing, only a probability of where it is (somewhere berween "front" and "back" most likely). Now, obviously this is not exactly how quantum mechanics or measurements work but I think it’s a good way to understand why it‘s *principally impossible* to simultaneously know both the precise position and precise impulse of a particle. Just a thought. ;-) Thanks for the many great videos, Sabine.

[@graymars1097]

Woah 😮 Dr. H I didn’t know you were a visual effects expert! That lighting was 💥 great video as always 👍 Thanks for uploading

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Thanks, but I didn't do that. I'll let my videographer know (I was pretty impressed as well!)

[@jannikheidemann3805]

@Joseph Wood I do not think that comment was directed at you, Mr. Wood.

[@MegaFonebone]

I am guessing that@Joseph Wood is the aforementioned videographer.

[@johnp1]

Very informative. I didn't know that this principle is related to waves.

[@m77dfk]

This was very enlightening! I last studied the uncertainty principle (and physics) in high school, and the introductory textbooks did a lousy job of explaining what it is and how it works, as opposed to simply giving the formula to use and churn out answers.

[@greythax]

Thank you so much for what you do! I knew almost all of the information in this video, but your presentation of it was like turning on a lightswitch!

[@booJay]

Learned more about QM from Sabine in less than 15 mins than I did from sitting in on half a term's worth of lectures...

[@ldbarthel]

Fortunately for Starfleet personnel, the Heisenberg Compensator is able to maintain the integrity of the transporter beam... 🖖

[@idjles]

I love, love, love Sabine's constant digs at String Theory. 0:26

[@jwarmstrong]

Sound wave theory is handy when building a audio speaker enclosure since waves interfere more leading to poor quality sound without a proper sized box

[@logiclust]

This is the best explanation of this I’ve come across yet

[@hyperduality2838]

CERTAINTY (predictability, syntropy) is dual to UNCERTAINTY (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. The time domain is dual to the frequency domain -- Fourier analysis. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat SUPERPOSITION -- Duality! Being is dual to non being -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat). Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato & Socrates. "Entropy is a measure of randomness" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order. Randomness (entropy, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, certainty). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Signals (patterns, structure, syntropy) are dual to noise (lack of patterns, orderless, entropy) -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Duality creates reality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@MrMark069]

If I had a teacher like this in college I would have actually understood math. Thank you so much for your clarity.

[@EleneDOM]

Same here!

[@hyperduality2838]

CERTAINTY (predictability, syntropy) is dual to UNCERTAINTY (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. The time domain is dual to the frequency domain -- Fourier analysis. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat SUPERPOSITION -- Duality! Being is dual to non being -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat). Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato & Socrates. "Entropy is a measure of randomness" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order. Randomness (entropy, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, certainty). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Signals (patterns, structure, syntropy) are dual to noise (lack of patterns, orderless, entropy) -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Duality creates reality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@edwardgrabczewski]

Fascinating explanation of several related areas. The graphics are great too, and really help to visualize the subject.

[@dvoiceotruth]

A lovely video. Always a pleasure to hear the correct native pronunciation of the names of the scientists. Looking forward to support this channel.

[@cipaisone]

I am not sure, but what you describe as “fluorescence” really is “phosphorescence”. Fluorescence is usually (as far as I remember) radiative relaxation happening just after absorption of light, while phosphorescence is the special case of fluorescence when the probability of radiative relaxation is low, so you get the emission long after absorption. ( which is what I think you refer to in this video)

[@E.T.S.]

_Correction to what I say at 3 mins 39: it should have been phosphorescent materials, not fluorescent. (Same basic principle, but the lifetime of the states is longer for the former than for the latter.)_

[@imsorryyourewelcome]

You killed it in under four seconds, and, as always, continued to do so. Your humor always makes me smile.

[@nicolagiansiracusa1524]

Thank you for the great video! I see that you have a strong awareness of the history of physics, and you really manage to input the fundamental notions while avoiding all unnecessary noise. Recently, I have been reading Barad's essay on agential realism (a *lot* of gobbledygook there) and would love to know your opinion on her distinction between uncertainty and indeterminacy (i.e., Heisenberg's vs Bohr's ideas).

[@hu5116]

Very nice presentation! It took me studying signal processing until I really understood the HUP, but you conceptually covered that very well. Thanks!

[@alleneverhart4141]

"Heisenberg may have slept here." -Bumper sticker seen on a Physics Prof's door.

[@cipaisone]

Hi Sabine, a fan of your channel here. I have a little wish for Christmas. In much of your previous videos and in your first book you attacked the mainstream fundamental physics, and specifically how unphysically justified assumptions led to little advances in the last decades. Recently the KZbin algorithm suggested me a video from “see the pattern”, title :” quantum electrodynamics is rotten at the core”, where the author present a series of fact related to the theory as they were all a bunch o conspiracies. I have no background to judge that, though my feeling is that the video is just a conspiracy theory itself, though it is presented quite convincingly. I thus thought that it would be cool having one video of yours, debunking conspiracy theories in physics, such that the one I mentioned from “see the pattern” channel. ( or if instead what is reported by that KZbinr is not a conspiracy, I would still like to have your opinion)

[@wdavis9680]

Newly subbed! Thank you for your work and especially the practice of science you know SHARING. I’m not mathematically inclined and to be honest incapable as well. Math that uses the alphabet confuddles me beyond uncomfortably. Yet when you or Matt Dowd Speak Math I often feel an understanding and that is absolutely affirming.

[@gefginn3699]

Great post Sabine. I always enjoy tuning into your newest post. 💛 🤩

[@MaryAnnNytowl]

Quantum uncertainty may be a thing, but I _am _*_certain_*_ I love_ how Sabine explains things! I'll call it the Sabine Certainty Principle. 😁 ❤️❤️

[@hyperduality2838]

CERTAINTY (predictability, syntropy) is dual to UNCERTAINTY (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. The time domain is dual to the frequency domain -- Fourier analysis. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat SUPERPOSITION -- Duality! Being is dual to non being -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat). Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato & Socrates. "Entropy is a measure of randomness" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order. Randomness (entropy, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, certainty). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Signals (patterns, structure, syntropy) are dual to noise (lack of patterns, orderless, entropy) -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Duality creates reality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@pratyushpanigrahi830]

Sir have u seen Sabine nonfree will video..do u agree with it that our whole life is predetermined before we are born by laws of nature and different equations??

[@hyperduality2838]

@@pratyushpanigrahi830 Randomness (entropy, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, certainty). Signals (patterns, structure, predictability) is dual to noise (unpredictability) -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. "Desire is the ultimate expression of freewill" -- Lucifer Morningstar. Sabine is half right and also half wrong -- right is dual to wrong. Brahman (the creator God, thesis) is dual to Shiva (the destroyer God, anti-thesis) creates Vishnu (the preserver God, synthesis) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. The central tenet of Hinduism is consistent with the Hegelian dialectic. The stars in the night sky are random but there is also order in the universe. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. The one (freewill) is defined in terms of the other (lack of freewill) -- duality! "Always two there are" -- Yoda. God, freedom, immortality -- the triality of Immanuel Kant.

[@hyperduality2838]

@@pratyushpanigrahi830 Yin is dual to Yang -- old Chinese proverb. Energy is duality, duality is energy. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. The force of gravity is proof that duality is real. Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). "The Force" is duality -- Jedi teaching. Action (thesis) is dual to reaction (anti-thesis) -- Sir Isaac Newton or the duality of force. Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. If forces are dual then energy must be dual. Energy = force * distance -- simple physics. All energy is dual.

[@pratyushpanigrahi830]

@@hyperduality2838 sorry sir..cn u pls explain in simple terms ..i am unable to get it haha..it bit complex to understand in physicsts form...one question sir.....like whoever we meet inour lifetime are all predestined or have free will too...bit cnfused here..

[@THE-X-Force]

You are such an incredibly good teacher. You truly are a gift to us all. Thank you sincerely for all that you do. Be good to yourself. ☮

[@felipemonteiro5877]

This is probably one of your best videos. Thank you very much!

[@eonasjohn]

Thank you for the video.

[@wheelswheels9199]

It’s works very well, thank you, I think, I can’t be sure

[@fahrenheit2101]

That waves section was extremely helpful. I'd always wondered where the principle originated, but that makes so much more sense than I expected.

[@1974rednaxela]

As always excellent content. Thank You, Sabine. For Christmas, I wish my two favorite KZbinrs Sabine Hossenfelder and Matt O'Dowd to make a collab video talking about a topic in science they both find exciting. I would be a good boy for the whole of 2023 for only that :)

[@eugen-m]

Great !! Is like you can either know where you are or what you're doing, but never both at the same time 😁😁😁

[@HarryNicNicholas]

you walk into the kitchen and immediately don't know why. and i'm not even sure about that anymore.

[@EleneDOM]

@@HarryNicNicholas At last we understand why that happens!

[@hyperduality2838]

CERTAINTY (predictability, syntropy) is dual to UNCERTAINTY (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. The time domain is dual to the frequency domain -- Fourier analysis. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat SUPERPOSITION -- Duality! Being is dual to non being -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat). Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato & Socrates. "Entropy is a measure of randomness" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order. Randomness (entropy, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, certainty). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Signals (patterns, structure, syntropy) are dual to noise (lack of patterns, orderless, entropy) -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Duality creates reality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@garethbarry3825]

Sabine, i am not sure if you have done a video on this, but may i kindly ask/suggest one explaining, justifying 'renormalisation?' One the face of it, it seems completely crazy that we can justify these equations that blow up to infinity- a lot of my undergrad was spent figuring terms that could be neglected because that vanished to zero. Thanks in any case!

[@frun]

Do the original equations blow up or just the perturbative expansion?

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Thanks for the suggestion, I will keep that in mind!

[@pratyushpanigrahi830]

@@SabineHossenfelder hi mam I saw ur free will video...if uncertainty principle exists then we have free will right??

[@elliott614]

Time resolution vs. Frequency resolution with fourier/wavelet transforms shows that this is more universal than just a result of bouncing a particle off a particle to measure a particle, which was how I was first taught about uncertainty in high school 25 years ago

[@elliott614]

ah yep, after continuing in the video, there's a difference between the inherent uncertainty when talking about waves in general which doesn't require quantum effects, and then there's a different quantum physics effect ?

[@danforthmedia-kr1jv]

Wow, this was so helpful on a topic that I couldn't previously wrap my head around, even at the highest level. The florescent materials and sound wave examples were particularly helpful.

[@dennistucker1153]

Love your videos and you are pretty awesome too. I would hope that you are training at least 1 protégé. This would not be me because most of my thoughts lay in another direction. I consider you to be a treasure to mankind and the universe. Love your sense of humor!

[@TerryBollinger]

I loved your emphasis in this video on the deep relationship of quantum uncertainty to two-way Fourier transforms. For me, this deeper Fourier relationship best captures some of the most astonishing aspects of quantum mechanics. In particular, this narrow-to-broad frequency relationship is, at the experimental level, utterly indifferent to classical energy limitations. While it's easy to picture how a quick whack on a classical cymbal might produce the broad range of frequencies we call noise, it's a lot stranger to realize that the quantum version of this same frequency range emerges even when the whack is so incredibly puny that only one quantum of sound, called a phonon, can ever be detected. On a vaster scale, the Fourier interpretation of quantum uncertainty allows a galaxy-cluster-sized Einstein lens to bend the path of a _single_ eons-old photon that, over time, has spread out across millions of lightyears. This focusing of the Fourier interpretation of a _single_ photon takes place as surely and reliably as it would if the light source had been intense enough to fill that entire space with entirely classical electromagnetic vibration. You, gentle reader, benefit from this same effect by the simple act of reading these words. Every photon that lands individually on your retina is focused by the lenses of your eyes as if it had been guided by an intense classical wave large enough to cover the entire enormous (to a photon) diameter of your eye lenses. In reality, the photon's energy is so minute that no part of your eye lenses can detect its passing. 2022-12-10.09.20 EST Sat

[@brothermine2292]

Alternatively, the light actually does travel as a (spread-out) wave, not as a particle. A non-classical wave, which has the "spooky action" property that its entire quantum of energy is absorbed at a small point (an electron in an atomic orbital, for example) even though some of the wave was far from the absorption point a moment before the absorption event.

[@TerryBollinger]

@@brothermine2292yes, you just succinctly described pilot waves. It was the indifference of the quantum Fourier spectrum to available energy that led first de Broglie (who later abandoned it) and then David Bohm (who wrote a detailed book on it) to what is now called pilot wave theory. The "pilot wave" is the non-classical wave you just described. For anyone quick to dismiss Bohm's approach, it's worth noting that pilot waves provide a nice clarity for analyzing certain non-relativistic classes of quantum experiments. John Bell credited pilot wave theory for leading him to his famous and experimentally significant Bell Inequality. Given what I just said, you may be surprised that I view pilot wave theory as a meaningless and ultimately detrimental mathematical abstraction. The problem is that just one pilot wave, let alone a near-infinity of them to represent all the particles in the universe, requires infinite information storage at every point in the fabric of the universe along the path of the wave. This deeply ether-like and energy-indifferent concept (data needs energy to exist) feature is a powerful indicator that the pilot wave is a human-brain-only abstraction that has nothing to do with how reality goes about implementing this remarkable behavior. 2022-12-10.10.38 EST Sat

[@rayoflight62]

The (quantum) computer scientists are at war with the phonons (quantum of sound) as the latter are accused of killing their qubits prematurely. It is a lot of drivel in my opinion, as I believe they are unable to thread even minimally below the noise threshold - beside dipping the entire fandango in liquid helium. They can't use the most elementary frontend, without using PLLs or de-noising algorithms, and calling fault on the phonons. They don't even truly exist, they are a clever math trick for calculating the vibrational energy transferred within the matter...

[@TerryBollinger]

@@rayoflight62 you make several excellent points. I'm old enough to recall when quantum computing theorists confidentially predicted that a mere five qubits would access so much of the computational power of Deutsch's infinitely massive (yet gravitationally invisible) multiverse that all existing encryptions would fall. After those rosily optimistic times there followed decades of "error correction" issues in which those mean, naughty little phonons kept pushing that lovely infinite multiverse of free computing power _just out of reach_ of everyone's most valiant efforts, so could we have a bit more funding, please? :) Quantum computing _is_ real, and it's astonishingly efficient for what it does. Those photons going through the lenses of your eyes are a beautiful example of authentic quantum computing, mediated by Fourier transforms and capable of almost unimaginable energy efficiency. The problem with qubits is they are not very quantum. A non-polarized electron floating in free space is quantum, but if you entangle the same electron with a gigantic classical device whose sole purpose is to define up and down with extreme precision and stability over time, the resulting electron is, at best, minimally quantum. You might as well call it an electron spin with a classical polar angle, e.g., 90° for a "full" superposition of up and down. You can get some nice - but also incredibly costly - analog computing out of such a mostly-classical arrangement, but good luck on accessing the full computational power of quantum entanglement and non-locality. (More funding, please!) Strategies for better understanding both the potential and the limits of realistic, finite-energy (no multiverse) quantum computing are better represented by the ordinary, everyday, room-temperature phenomenon of lenses. One photon traversing a complex series of lenses represents a level of computational efficiency in the Fourier domain that boggles the mind. It's too bad there hasn't been more work devoted to this easier yet more profoundly quantum approach to quantum computing, instead of trying to make classical computers with insanely classical bits just a _little_ quantum. 2022-12-10.12.20 EST Sat

[@brothermine2292]

@@TerryBollinger : No, pilot wave theory (DeBroglie-Bohm) has both particles and guiding waves. The model I described has only waves.

[@edwinjoy9]

For a communication engineer, that was a really nice intuitive derivation of the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Beautiful video as always!

[@jabyers]

I really liked your video Sabine. I really like all of them, but this one in particular ( sort of pun intended ) I have been waiting for, where your explanation of the Uncertainty Principle starts with its inevitability in waves and shows how it transfers to particles beautifully. Very nicely done. Tres Bon.

[@andreab380]

Question: in your opinion, what does it mean, materially, that the behaviour of particles can be modelled after waves, but with formal differences like added constants such as h barred? Are they "actually" waves (like in waves of air and water and football fans, where there is a material substance "waving") or is their behaviour just similar to waves, insofar as it can be modelled as a distribution with peaks and troughs? Or, better, how would we address this question experimentally, if it is meaningful at all?

[@MichelleHell]

You've seen the single and double slit experiments? When fired one at a time, they still form an interference pattern. The final position of a single shot fired is uncertain until it hits, and it's uncertain within the range of the distribution pattern. So it starts off as a particle, interferes like a wave, then finishes like a particle when striking the detector. If the particle itself is a wave within a more fundamental field, then the particle can interfere with itself because it's the excitation within the field that interferes. The particle is an excitation of its corresponding field of virtual particles. Think of a particle as an ocean wave compacted down to a single point. When the particle encounters the slit, the ocean wave is busted wide open and then quickly collapses back to a single point with a new trajectory. Since the particle is an excitation of an underlying field, it can behave in this way. This is the strangeness of quantum mechanics, that you could reduce an ocean wave down to a single point with the same behavior as the wave

[@robertbutsch1802]

If you choose to observe a quantum particle as a particle, you can do that. If instead you choose to observe it as a wave, you can do that. There are no physics describing how to observe it as both at the same time, and it’s not likely any such physics will ever be developed. In that sense the question doesn’t really have any meaning.

[@krzysztofciuba271]

She was not precise: here,"wave" is that of Schrodinger - a mathematical formula in a complex plane (not Cartesian): more: "particle" is not an "object" in the classical sense: it is on the definition of a "wave packet"; hence spread out (in x-position, and p-momentum dimension);i.e. also means: it does not exist in rest,i.e. at rest- the concept of his existence has no sense! Experimentally? Great: that is the starting point of Hesenberg's reasoning: one can measure ONLY the spectrum lines,e.e. frequencies (then energies of "sth" in the atom) and not at all position, time, etc. Hence, the matrix model of his or Schrodinger's wave; these spectra lines (and calculated)frequencies are already the effect of the measurement, not a "Particle" (photon, electron) etc but the bunch/agregate of them-i.e. QM is a statistical theory on the assumption and not about One Particle; hence, all these Interpretations contra each other ( "Wave collapse" etc.) are philosophical BS if they quarrel about a "particle". All QM formulas are deterministic as any other math formula to win a lottery in a Weekend draw: does a math equation collapses when someone draws the winning numbers (of a Lottery)?

[@Merilix2]

@@krzysztofciuba271 "does a math equation collapses when someone draws the winning numbers?" Well, not the equation itself but the outcome does collapse (as always if you replace a uncertain variable by a certain value). So you're right, the collapse is just a property of probabilistic math.

[@b43xoit]

No one knows what "actually" underlies the fact that the wave math predicts the probabilities (relative frequencies) of outcomes.

[@PenandPaperScience]

Very informative, yet again! But what's an example of measuring "instantaneous" momentum of a particle in just one measurement? Isn't it always a two-point measurement resulting in an average momentum over this interval?

[@retinapeg1846]

Err, kind of POVM's give you back an eigenvalue which is a single point measurement.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

I am afraid I don't know what you mean by "instantaneous". Strictly speaking, no measurement is ever instantaneous. If that's what you mean, I agree.

[@PenandPaperScience]

@@retinapeg1846 Yeah, but can you map a POVM to a physical measurement scheme? edit: like concretely :)

[@retinapeg1846]

@@PenandPaperScience Yeah as sabine said no measurement is ever instantaneous. But it's not like the classical world where we take the two positions to find distance traveled or velocity. The eig val you get back IS the measurement value.

[@PenandPaperScience]

@@SabineHossenfelder Just take a purely classical particle, how do you make a measurement that allows you to say that "the momentum of said particle was p at precisely time t". Poor choice of words, my apologies :)

[@shaileshjoshi3397]

Thank you,Sabine! You are just amazing an explaining scientific concept! Making complex things simple is the most difficult thing to do... and you do it effortlessly! Please keep on doing it for us!

[@jimo9555]

1:50 ..or the one with Schroedinger.... Cop: "Do you know there's a dead cat in your trunk?!" Schroedinger: "Well *_now_* I do!"

[@PenandPaperScience]

Is there any reason, apart from needing a particle to be localised, that we single out the single-particle solution of the Schrodinger equation which is composed of plane waves that add up exactly to a wave-packet. What with all the other solution?

[@SabineHossenfelder]

There are infinitely many different bases that you can use to describe any solution of the Schrödinger equation just like there are infinitely many bases of a coordinate system in any vector space. We normally use either delta-functions or plane waves out of convenience. But there are many other sets of solutions that you can use and that, in some circumstances are actually being used.

[@PenandPaperScience]

@@SabineHossenfelder But a choice of basis should never influence the physical properties of the system, right? As space-time intervals are invariant under Lorentz transformations, what physical property remains constant under the change of basis between plane-wave or delta?

[@eliavrad2845]

Besides regular QM not being a relativistic theory, the physical properties of a particle are never changed by the change of bases. We describe a state of plane wave and a state of wave packet, but these are not the same states, so they don't have the same physical properties: we're describing different particles and comparing them. The main idea is that a particle in a state of plane-wave solution i.e. one of the base functions has a definite momentum (p=h/wavelength) but indefinite location (wave exists in all space), while a (different) particle in a state of a wave packet, which is a superposition of many plane waves/combination of several base functions, has a less defined momentum (p could be h/wavelength of any of the composing waves) and a more definite location (around the center of the packet) compared to the first particle.

[@frun]

@@PenandPaperScience Quantum amplitudes?

[@PenandPaperScience]

@@eliavrad2845 So the wave-packet (superposition) solution describes a different physical particle than does the plane wave solution? How do we compare these two solutions then? If we write down the Schrodinger equation for a single particle, and solve it, we shouldn't expect getting different physical states as a result, right?

[@TheOwlman]

1:55 Don't forget he was driving with Schrödinger and, when the cop looked in the boot/trunk and asked if they knew they had a dead cat in there, responded, "we do now."

[@andreac5152]

The humility of this woman teaching us the uncertainty principle without going on on her personal view of what follows. We want to hear that part too again, just put a disclaimer that it's your personal view.

[@raymitchell9736]

This is probably the best description of this principle... and you related it to the seemingly unrelated point about time and frequency domains with the Fourier Transform.... that is a real fascinating connection.

[@hyperduality2838]

CERTAINTY (predictability, syntropy) is dual to UNCERTAINTY (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. The time domain is dual to the frequency domain -- Fourier analysis. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat SUPERPOSITION -- Duality! Being is dual to non being -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat). Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato & Socrates. "Entropy is a measure of randomness" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order. Randomness (entropy, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, certainty). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Signals (patterns, structure, syntropy) are dual to noise (lack of patterns, orderless, entropy) -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Duality creates reality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@axle.australian.patriot]

I'm with Albert, I don't like the idea of spooky actions at a distance either. > Kind of poked me on the FFT thing now... Been meaning to write those algos for ages.

[@Google_Censored_Commenter]

She recently made a video about why spooky action at a distance is real btw.

[@santerisatama5409]

You and Al don't agree that 1-1=0 also supraluminally? Math is valid only subluminally?

[@axle.australian.patriot]

@@Google_Censored_Commenter So the wave function of the quantum state will decay to it's polls without any human measurement? Even though examples such as schrodinger's cat says that it is only brought about by the observation of it? Aka It is a human idea, and not necessarily reality? I remain skeptical :)

[@axle.australian.patriot]

@@santerisatama5409 Math often fails in the real world. It is an abstract construct of the human mind, not reality. > Yes 1 -2 can = 0 in the real world

[@Google_Censored_Commenter]

@@axle.australian.patriot That's why we do experiments, to rid you of your skepticism. In physics, an "observation" doesn't mean humans looking at something. All it means is that a particle interacts with and therefore disrupts the system. That's all we mean by it. Watch Sabine's video on the relevance of consciousness for more info.

[@BudgeChem]

I like this content.

[@flaviobernardi7659]

Hey Sabine, great video! Now the uncertainty principle looks far more simple and straight than I thought it was. PS. Considering that some part of your audience it's not native English speaker, it would be great if your vid animations and illustrative figures were placed in a higher part of the frame to not be hidden by the subtitles. I know that will not always be possible, but it's a nice thing to consider when creating the illustrations. Tks a lot!

[@GroktheGonk]

Just the best coherent comprehensive explanation. I live for the silhouette fade into background at the end of each week 😝

[@anattasunnata3498]

Sabine, have you read about Gustavo Romero, an argentinian physicist and philosopher? If you consider it fruitful, I'd love to hear your views on his ideas on the philosophy of space-time, and on the "meaningless" character of the time-energy inequality (he uses that name instead of 'uncertainty', because the latter makes reference to an epistemic component). If you're interested, the book where he expresses his ideas is 'Scientific Philosophy'. Thanks, in beforehand.

[@b1zzler]

That sounds like some thought-provoking reading, but while I agree that “uncertainty principle” is a linguistically deficient banner for the underlying mathematics… I would argue that “time-energy inequality” actually obfuscates it further. It’s nowhere near as brain-defeating as the measurement problem, but it’s also not as trivial as seconds ≠ joules.

[@anattasunnata3498]

​@@b1zzler I'm just a layman regarding physics (I know only stuff at a superficial level, and most of them are probably wrong). So I apologize in beforehand for any mistake or confusion. I think Romero is telling us that the mathematical element that underlies Heisenberg's principle is an inequality: the product of the complementary magnitudes is equal or larger than the reduced Planck's constant. There's an inequality. That why it's momentum-position inequality. It's never obvious how to interpret a mathematical element, so there could be various proposals on what the inequality refers to (what property represents). Romero's position is that has nothing to do with the measurement problem, but it's just indicating an ontological elements of quantum objects: they are not particles, nor waves, nor particle-waves; they are a sui-generis objects, quantum objects (some authors called them 'quantons') that behave in non-classical ways, although they can be modeled, in some of it's aspects, with properties similar as those of particles, and in other scenarios similarly as those of waves. These quantons are "blurry", because they don't have defined values of some of their properties, and that's ine of the things indicated by the inequality. Kind regards!

[@gtziavelis]

Like my uncle, h bar makes a lot of pi's disappear.

[@rayoflight62]

Thank you for an ultra-clear, nice and meaningful physics video on uncertainty! Pointing out what is a property of the waves from what is property of the particles make all the difference for the learner. Thanks, Anthony

[@aleksandrpeshkov6172]

Oh, dear.. ANTHONY, You were, are and will be the Ray of Light, just THANKS...

[@hyperduality2838]

CERTAINTY (predictability, syntropy) is dual to UNCERTAINTY (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. The time domain is dual to the frequency domain -- Fourier analysis. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat SUPERPOSITION -- Duality! Being is dual to non being -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat). Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato & Socrates. "Entropy is a measure of randomness" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order. Randomness (entropy, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, certainty). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Signals (patterns, structure, syntropy) are dual to noise (lack of patterns, orderless, entropy) -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Duality creates reality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@aleksandrpeshkov6172]

@@hyperduality2838 Oh, dear ... please, accept my deepest respect along with cordial thanks for the utmost clarity on the issue...and ....still it needs must to take just one step further : IN OPTIONAL CHRONOLOGY TIME IS THE ABYSMAL EVER GROWING PRESSURE OF THE NON-USE ALTERNATIVES ON THE SURFACE OF THE ONE AVAILABLE OPTION ...HENCE THE SMOOTHNESS OF NEUTRON STARS... WE ARE RUNNING NOT OUT OF TIME BUT OF OPTIONS...

[@emoritzi]

Sabine youre Great! I'm sick and your videos are the one thing keeping me from boredom and despair❤

[@martinmomu9141]

I apluad you for putting this together! With everything going on right now, the best decision to be on any creative man's heart is having a profitable investment strategy.

[@vaztrevorknox4203]

The best decision I ever made in my life was investing in financial market. Trust me guys, it pays a lot. I have come to realize that trading bitcoin is more profitable than holding it and waiting for it to skyrocket. If you trade without a expert then you are gambling and have no business in trading..

[@marshallbsanz2068]

@wood ofw The fluctuations of the market only affect those that hodl coins, but traders makes money on both sides, when it's bearish they go short when it's bullish they go long... The best strategy to use in trading crypto is to trade with a professional, like Fergus waylen he understand the market quite well, that way maximum profits are guaranteed.

[@roberternest4641]

I'm honestly surprised that this name is being mentioned here, I stumbled upon one of his clients testimony last two months in CNBC world news and decided to try him out...I'm Expecting my third cashout in 2days

[@Kristenshwan]

I have also been trading with him and the profits are secured and over a 100% return on investment directly sent to your wallet. Lack of trade discipline is the primary reason for in day trade losses. It is estimated that nearly 80-85% of day traders end up losing money in the stock market

[@Richardson238]

@A-G Bassey orn Please how can I contact Mr fergus ? I really like what he has done for you, and I also want to benefit from it.

[@russchadwell]

Why don't theoretical physicists more commonly receive the Nobel ?

[@LiviuGelea]

they did. unless they were Jewish.

[@minerharry]

12:22 “If you’re uncertain about this then you’re doing it right” LMFAO So true in so many ways

[@punditgi]

One of your best videos! And no red phone! Recht vielen Dank! 😃

[@jonathancamp7190]

If I know one thing, it's that I enjoy my Saturday morning coffee with Sabine Hossenflelder. I drink Folger's Coffee, and their slogan is that "Mornings are better with Folgers in your cup." I've added to that, that Mornings are better with Folgers in your cup and Sabine Hossenfelder on the laptop. All compliments aside, this was a really great video this week. Thanks for all of your hard work.

[@luudest]

1:39 I wonder how the 'greater to sign' found its way into the equation? I think it's the only physics equation I know which has this sign.

[@robertbutsch1802]

At 9:22 Sabine shows an example of a “greater than or equal to” formula that is not the uncertainty principle. Also, Bell’s theorem (not discussed in this video) produces an inequality.

[@DrDeuteron]

because a state can be messier than the most certain state. In telecom/radar there is a minimum time (duration of signaL) * bandwidth product >= 1 (same Fourier math as here), but people like to put information in their signals, and the product is called the signal's "sophistication", e.g. a "chirp", "phase-coding" and so on. Also: triangle inequality.

[@bolibardo1514]

Her videos are very useful for budding scientists. I wish I had these videos when I graduated.

[@terrytartu]

Your wonderful humour is often used to elucidate some point you've made, though your uncle making pies disappear is a comic phrase on the curious life of pi. Your explanations are wonderful you certainly have a gift of communication. I am uncertain as to whether I understand it all though (and I have previously studied the subject and failed in comprehending it then too!) I guess that is a success though...being uncertain about uncertainty is better than being certain about uncertainty. Another great video thank you.

[@PenninkJacob]

❤❤❤ I love how your personality is not "egotistical." I can tell you are motivated by pure curiosity and real science, unlike "others" in the field... Thank you, (P.S. narcissism)

[@jonpacheco3063]

I’m not very bright but I love watching your videos and learning as much as I can. I do have to rewind a lot, but you’re one of the only KZbin physicists that get right into the math/theory explanation. I love your jokes too 😂

[@reynoldeuler9802]

I am so grateful for your contribution to the youtube community. Grüße aus München.

[@Glorrox]

it took me 4 times trying to understand what she was really saying, even if explained simple they are still very complex topics. thank you

[@PSG_Mobile]

Great class! Thank you!

[@kennethfisher7013]

Again I learned something new. I never realized what a crazy driver Heisenberg was.

[@philochristos]

That was a really good explanation. Thank you.

[@michaelwhalan9783]

In an algebraic equation you can replace variables with geometric values like sine and cosine to simulate uncertainty effects. They describe 2-D geometry whereas we should learn to replace variables with multidimensional sine and cosine equivalents.

[@mathisfun774]

This is one of the best expositions of the uncertainty principle I have ever seen; and I have seen many. For me, the most important part is the reference to the Fourier Transform and its inverse transform followed by the linkage back to quantum mechanics.

[@hyperduality2838]

CERTAINTY (predictability, syntropy) is dual to UNCERTAINTY (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. The time domain is dual to the frequency domain -- Fourier analysis. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat SUPERPOSITION -- Duality! Being is dual to non being -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat). Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato & Socrates. "Entropy is a measure of randomness" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order. Randomness (entropy, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, certainty). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Signals (patterns, structure, syntropy) are dual to noise (lack of patterns, orderless, entropy) -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Duality creates reality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@getcomplex]

Great explanation. Thanks Sabine👍

[@michaelhibbs3683]

Very nice explanation of Fourier analysis! I like to think of the uncertainty principle in terms of sound waves. If you play a short burst (say a few milliseconds) of a low organ pipe note, then it is impossible to tell what the pitch was. The practical limit may have more to do with the physiology of hearing, but the Fourier spectrum sets an ultimate limit on how long a note has to be played before the pitch can be determined. You get the same effect in optics: a femtosecond pulse of laser light has an enormous wavelength spread. At least for me, these examples make the uncertainty principle easier to reconcile with pre-quantum physics.

[@hyperduality2838]

CERTAINTY (predictability, syntropy) is dual to UNCERTAINTY (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. The time domain is dual to the frequency domain -- Fourier analysis. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat SUPERPOSITION -- Duality! Being is dual to non being -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat). Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato & Socrates. "Entropy is a measure of randomness" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order. Randomness (entropy, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, certainty). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Signals (patterns, structure, syntropy) are dual to noise (lack of patterns, orderless, entropy) -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Duality creates reality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@jroc2201]

Excellent work, informative and entertaining

[@lexiyoutube]

Thx for the nice videos and information!

[@johnjacquard863]

hello! thanks for the great videos! i was wondering if you could do a video on philosophy vs science (specifically the particular issue of first principles as related to hidden assumptions.)?

[@RayDrouillard]

Thank you for explaining the connection between Heisenberg and Fourier. We learned about Heisenberg in the Integrated Circuit Technology class, and Fourier transforms in the Communication Technology class. I don't know why we never managed to connect the two. Once you explained it, it seems really obvious.

[@nwogamesalert]

I bet they didn't teach you that Heisenberg, doubted the reality of man made nuclear explosions, and thought it was mere war time propaganda. Which it actually was and still is...

[@hyperduality2838]

CERTAINTY (predictability, syntropy) is dual to UNCERTAINTY (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. The time domain is dual to the frequency domain -- Fourier analysis. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat SUPERPOSITION -- Duality! Being is dual to non being -- Plato's cat. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat (Fichte's cat). Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and he stole it from Plato & Socrates. "Entropy is a measure of randomness" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order. Randomness (entropy, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, certainty). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Signals (patterns, structure, syntropy) are dual to noise (lack of patterns, orderless, entropy) -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. Duality creates reality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@Thomas-gk42]

The quiz led me here again, best education 😊, great A-singing, please use it in an upcoming music-video again ❤

[@chiaracoetzee]

Oh my god. I just watched this video and suddenly connected the uncertainty principle to the wavelets used in data compression. Storing raw signals has perfect time domain information but no frequency domain information, and storing a Fourier transform of the signal has perfect frequency information but no time information. Wavelets are designed to be a compromise between these two that store a little bit of both, but they never have full information about both.