What is The Schrödinger Equation, Exactly?

[@upandatom]

You can learn quantum mechanics with brilliant if you like brilliant.org/upandatom/ Also, when I was 10 I asked my older brother to teach me to skateboard. The first thing he tried to teach me was to start moving from a stationary position. He had me stand on the back of the board with one foot so it tilted upwards, and then slam my other foot down at the front of the board and apparently that was meant to make it move forward. So on my first try I slammed my foot down too hard, the board slid out from under me as I was propelled forward and my face hit the hard pavement. I never skated again.

[@mananyt219]

Up and Atom awwww

[@bluefire9697]

#Feels.Bad.Man

[@Kazimx0786]

F

[@DavidLindes]

Interesting... sorry to hear about the face plant! But somehow I'm connecting it to the final bit of this blog post I just read yesterday: blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mask-gender-in-technical-interviews-heres-what-happened/ ... relevant??? Also, I just want to let you know that I find the brilliant.org plugs jarring, and wish they either weren't there, or were more subtle, or something. I don't expect a change necessarily, just... thought I'd share one viewer's take. I pay for the ad-free version of KZbin, and the brilliant stuff feels like advertising... which I presume it is? :) ... and perhaps you genuinely want to support what they're doing, and that's fine, just... I dunno, letting you know. :)

[@upandatom]

Thank you for letting me know about how the brilliant ad sounded. It's my very first sponsored video so I'm still getting the hang of it. I do like brilliant a lot, but I'm disappointed to hear it stunned you. I'll work on making the ad reads more subtle or giving more warning or something. I want your viewer experience to be as pleasant as possible, so thank you again for letting me know!

[@zachstar]

One of the best explanations of the Schrödinger equation I've seen.

[@upandatom]

n_n

[@soureachsak5027]

MajorPrep AGREED!!!!!!!!!

[@Wild4lon]

But how is the general form of the wave equation derived?

[@rokko_fable]

The energy is only “quantized” because we are trying to measure it in a particular point in time. “Superposition” is also meaningless theory. In no way does observing anything force it into one state or another

[@sanazeersanazeer2825]

True

[@tomasb7645]

Been teaching advanced high school Chemistry & Physics for 20+ years - the BEST 10-minute explanation I have found! My students absolutely love this explanation. THANKS for posting! Fantastic work here!!!

[@MaxStrongman]

ok im really confused, since when did high school physics have quantum physics in it

[@Hyporama]

wow

[@MaxStrongman]

@Memes shorts you know i literally just figured out that high school is like a levels sorta

[@MaxStrongman]

@Memes shorts oh its a british thing i live in the uk

[@michaelsweeny4005]

Having just finished my degree in Mathematics just under a year ago, I'm finding it really therapeutic to come back and learn about topics (I struggled with) without the pressure of having to learn them for my exams/dissertations etc. It means I can enjoy the basic ideas and theories without getting to bogged down in the really hard maths. Great video, thank you!

[@tahasiddiqui1351]

This describes me so well omfg. I never thought about this until now

[@peterpankert3810]

Same for me, even if I have gotten my physics degree many years ago. Now I'm reading in a very relaxed mood mathematical papers and physics books. When I don't understand them I come back later, without pressure. Particle physics or General Relativity are indeed somewhat hard like pure mathematics.

[@gristly_knuckle]

I'm bad at math. I disagree that the Shrodinger Equation describes real meaning. It can't be performed. Everyone I don't see is really somewhere, and accidents aren't happening. In the same way a "quantum particle" must really have a position and a velocity, even if you can't see it. Perhaps every "quantum particle" has a corresponding "Satan square" which must have a position and velocity because it is a real object. It collapses into a Satan square only in your imagination.

[@garybrisebois2667]

Why I fail socially: "Hi, Im Gary, nice to meet you! So the Schrödinger equation..."

[@rexthegamergembox]

Ha ha lol

[@michaelterrell5061]

Just take a page out of Feynman’s book and be calm and handsome

[@MS-il3ht]

well, no wonder. Everybody must be thinking: "where did that ö go?"

[@bbr6667]

Lol

[@garybrisebois2667]

@@MS-il3ht fixed it

[@rishan_sir]

I was living peacefully, then I decided to do bachelors in physics, now I live in a constant state of mental suffering whilst also increasing my knowledge of physics and further destroying my mental health

[@adilsanadi5639]

This is how our professors must make subject interesting so that everyone can understand and see the beauty of physics❤

[@luisluna4486]

"So here's the derivation if you don't believe me" Oh trust me, I believe you

[@mustakim2144]

That's what I said too 😂

[@PartialViewmusic]

@L. Kärkkäinen Well, that honestly is not a proper derivation of the Schrödinger equation. It assumes the time dependent wave function has a form as \Psi(x,t)=e^{i(kx-\omega t)} (This is latex code, plug it into an interpreter to more clearly see what I mean). This is called an ansatz and it works in order to derive an equation. However, there is no proper, real and strict mathematical proof of the Schrödinger Equation. Schrödinger simply postulated the equation. And so far it works, me as a third year nuclear physics student use it every other week to compute wave functions in the shell model of a nucleus. And it works and can be experimentally shown to work. But there is no proof. Pure mathematicians despise us physicists for using it since they always require proofs haha

[@velivelmu8530]

(6:00) \Psi = \text{e} ^{ \text{i}(kx- \omega t)}~~~(= \cos(kx- \omega t)+ \text{i} \sin(kx- \omega t)~) \\ \dfrac{ \text{d} \Psi }{ \text{d} x}= \text{i}k \, \text{e} ^{ \text{i}(kx- \omega t)}= \text{i}k \Psi \\ \dfrac{ \text{d}^2 \Psi}{ \text{d}x^2}= \text{i}k \, \text{i}k \Psi= -k^2 \Psi \\ k= \dfrac{p}{ \hbar}~~~~~ \left ( [k]=~ \frac{kg \cdot \frac{m}{s}}{J \cdot s}= \frac{kg \cdot m}{Nm \cdot s^2}= \frac{kg }{kg \cdot \frac{m}{s^2} \cdot s^2}= \frac{1}{m}~ ight ) \\ \dfrac{ \text{d}^2 \Psi}{ \text{d}x^2}= -\dfrac{p^2}{ \hbar^2} \Psi \\ - \hbar^2 \, \dfrac{ \text{d}^2 \Psi}{ \text{d}x^2}= p^2 \, \Psi \\ E= E_k+E_p= \frac{p^2}{2m}+E_p \\ E \Psi= \frac{p^2}{2m} \Psi+E_p \Psi=\frac{p^2 \Psi}{2m}+E_p \Psi=\dfrac{- \hbar^2}{2m} \, \dfrac{ \text{d}^2 \Psi}{ \text{d}x^2}+E_p \Psi \\

[@sujithsugathan6273]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fnPQfoKmaseknqM Derivation of Time independent Schrodinger equation kzbin.info/www/bejne/fWLdY4uagsd5qdE Derivation of Time Dependent Schrodinger equation

[@gold333]

This girl is stupid beyond belief. Put a stand alone recorder or heart sensor monitor in the box with the cat. Play it back after you have opened it to do a retroactive observation. You will witness the exact moment the cat did or didn’t die before you opened the box. Your consciousness has nothing to do with it, it’s simply the observational tool interacting with the observed scene. Pretty dumb to think human consciousness has anything to do with it. What idiots.

[@deepakmecheri4668]

Can't say I'm not ashamed of the fact that I learned more from this 10min video than an entire semester. You are awesome.

[@JohnR77]

Maybe because you can take a whole semester and explain it in 10 min. Easy to understand, very difficult to prove. As Einstein said if we understand something then we can explain it to others.

[@anamrajbhandari6593]

Same here bro

[@GraemePayne1967Marine]

Yes, I understand I "better" now. BUT, I really wish you had been teaching when I was in university ... about 50 years ago! I didn't _really_ learn a lot until I was well immersed into my eventual career in electronics - when I had to do quick mind-refreshes in order to do the work. Thank you for this series!

[@hemantsharma4849]

Me:- Lets understand schrondinger equation Schrondinger:- I didn't get it how will you ?

[@sirdgar]

schrondinger after watching this video: ohh now i get it !!!

[@ador4047]

That's not true

[@alphatubescience7048]

Schrondinger after reading this comment: my name is schroedinger not schrondinger

[@Fury9969]

@@ador4047 !q0

[@valentinbernard8126]

@j schroedonger

[@fabriciaoliveira3236]

This video was better than my entire semester of quantum physics. Thank you.

[@vectorequilibrium5839]

Don't loose your time with very bad ''quantum'' physic theories... ''Small things make's bigger things'' Nassim Harramein. (there's only one unified field and Unified Physic now, tks to him).

[@bsill1477]

yeah right :) entire semester compacted into 10 minutes video of course the teacher is very beautiful too

[@anders5611]

You must have had a VERY bad course. If you think this video is better than an actual course.

[@Fleato]

@@anders5611 not all teachers should be teaching. That's all I'm sayin.

[@ayanagarwaliitdelhi7662]

This is in our high school physics book

[@sharonjohn7487]

7:48 the most beautiful and relatable animation I have ever witnessed.

[@Psiberzerker]

6:17 "Here's the derivation..." Thank you for posting that. I could have paused, and looked it up, but you showed your work, so we didn't have to. That's a helpful touch.

[@dasyamfigari]

Once you showed that Schrödinger Equation is equivalent to E = KE + PE, I suddenly got it all clear... Thank you a lot ☺

[@vishnuteja3301]

Dasyam Figari totally agreed! Easy to remember

[@gamingwithtrikku2371]

Same, like it's there from the bohr's model, but we were just blind lol UwU

[@KazeReload]

Thank you so much for including the "here's the calculation if you don't believe me" part! It's something my solid state physics' teacher didn't tell us and it was never pointed out that clearly. Now it's crystal clear!

[@finspin8577]

I love how excited you get about all this. It's wonderful to see people who get so excited about what they know. We need teachers with this level of excitement.

[@darwinvinci7744]

I wish my prof were 0.1 % as excited as her about teaching quantum mechanics.

[@InspireFreedomForever]

It's refreshing for sure! Don't ever let anyone/ anything dim that shine!

[@timgchannel3328]

Lost me five minutes in. I am improving.

[@oak3785]

Finally graduating with my physics degree and I love how for the first time ever I can watch a youtube physics video and actually know everything, even the derivations and solutions. Fellsgoodman

[@FREDMOCKING]

I am a chem eng and even I get it. Great

[@adriadi4986]

Which feels great😌

[@tibees]

super cute animations!

[@VaibhavbBv]

Hello u r also physics youtuber right?

[@maddyndaddyjeans2892]

Tibees cool

[@DDKKAY]

Tibees you are gorgeous.😍😍😍 Cute

[@fundemort]

@abc bca Until there comes a boy who both like.

[@trilokimaurya1479]

You both are so good!!

[@whoever6458]

I like this explanation a lot! I only had to take a year of physics for my biology degree and I was terrified I would fail the entire degree because of physics at first but then I started to like it and it also made the math I had to take easier to understand. Something I did wonder about this but was too intimidated to ask my professor about was whether the weirdness of quantum mechanics was why people started considering whether other dimensions and parallel universes exist. For the sake of the poor cat, I sure hope they do.

[@Nossairito]

Man your explaination is just sooo convenient to get an intuition about a topic and make it click in my head. Sure it doesn't have the technical nitty-gritty but getting a gut feeling and a logical comprehension of a subject is the best gateway to wanting to check out the details. Thank you so much for all the info, you are doing such a wonderful service to so many people

[@eckardbezuidenhout]

I think this is the most intuitive lesson i have had on Quantum mechanics. I passed the subject with a distinction purely because i could solve the maths but i never really understood the meaning of it all. Thank you for this, it was brilliant.

[@podiac]

As a mathematician i will be certain that my 9 years old child will get what is all about with your presentation. Love your energy :)

[@ProfessorPolitics]

I definitely feel like I enjoy it more-- especially because you actually went through the elements of the equation. I know that a 10 minute video can only give a cursory look, but most people just do a little hand-waving and say "this equation says ALL you need to know" without explaining even the basics of HOW the equation does it. So this was awesome!

[@CamaradaArdi]

Is it so? At least here in Spain all equations and formulas are thoroughly explained and derived.

[@jonthecomposer]

You seem to have a nearly perfect balance of things that make learning and watching you pleasing. You have clear explanations that are easy to take in, or at least enough to whet a curiosity in the subject matter. Also, your motions are very fluid and playful. I think that gives your videos an inviting feel. Great job!!!

[@upandatom]

Aww thank you so much this comment made me smile :)

[@pratik3476]

7:07 "But what about the wave function? Where,...[pause]...is the electron?" - This really got me!! Awesome video...super simplified explanation of such tricky concept. Loved your energy!

[@peterbrough2461]

My electron went missing. I opened the box and found it had tunneled out.

[@dozog]

On a more serious note: Wouldn't that mean that the Wave function does not have to be zero at the edge of the box?

[@seanehle8323]

Yes. That's exactly what it means. In the real world, there is no way to create an infinite potential capable of forcing the wave function to 0 at the boundaries of the box (much less the entire universe outside the box, which is what the problem sets up). What's amazing is that despite the fact that this example is non-physical, it can be used to produce excellent approximations of real experiments.

[@torinperreyclear1377]

A physicist at Cal poly San Luis Obispo once told me that the particle in an infinite energy well is a toy problem, your comment has finally help me understand what he meant.

[@jacquesdemolay2699]

Yeah well ! according to Shroedinger your electron could be located ANYWHERE in the universe - and it would still belong to the atom to which it is said to belong. It gives a new meaning to belonging, hey ? When you hold an object in your hand - do not think that all of this object is in your hand - it is scattered all over the universe and can still be IN YOUR HAND. How's that for a mystic ? but do not accuse scientists to be mystics - they wrongly believe they have ended mysticism, when in fact they have merely hijacked it.

[@raghu45]

Hi Peter, you would know either where it went approximately or where it is now, not both 😉. You choose.

[@KelseyPhillipPayne]

Thank you for adding the derivation! This whole video was immensely helpful and elegant in representing the equation thoroughly yet also fairly simply.

[@dancook1118]

Thank you for this! I am curious but these concepts to not come easily. Your enthusiasm and sense of fun help make them clearer.

[@DavidMaurand]

that teenage bedroom scene is the best illustration of this concept ever. well done!

[@jimkiser1429]

Well, except I would guess that Jade's wave function would collapse to a higher probability of studying than the 1% character in her animation.

[@tusharbhudia9421]

I understood it I'm 16 and do 1h work a day

[@sciencechris2350]

This was the greatest explanation of the wave function ever, I knew what is was before but this completely advanced it so much. Also I have been trying to find a video or an article explaining the Schrodinger equation for a week or 2 now, so thank you so much for not only explaining it, but explaining it perfectly so that everyone can understand it.

[@aniketeuler6443]

I believe schrodinger must have understood that better if you were there to help him 😂😂😂😂😂

[@marklestergesta7554]

HAHAHAA

[@justinekim1440]

Thank you so much for such an engaging explanation of a complicated concept I've been trying to grasp for weeks now

[@aspendesign]

Thank you for making these complex things more accessible. It’s a joy to listen to you.

[@CalebMadrigal]

Amazingly done. It’s hard work to make simple explanations to difficult topics.

[@ColinMill1]

When I was an undergraduate at Bristol in the early 1970s they thought it would be a good idea for physics and chemistry students to take all the first year courses from both departments. As a consequence we got quantum mechanics from the physicists at 9am and quantum mechanics from the chemists at 10am. Unfortunately the departments clearly never talked to one another and the physicists taught the time-dependent form while the chemists taught the time-independent form with neither of them acknowledging the existence of the other form!. Neither side thought it was a good idea to show that Newtonian mechanics can also be written in the Hamiltonian formalism (which I think should be obligatory to save the inevitable confusion of presenting a new physical concept in a new mathematical wrapper at the same time). Anyway, I guess it did me an indirect favour - on graduation I decided to do research in an area where quantum mechanics wasn't involved and I chose cloud microphysics - perhaps belatedly one of the hottest topics of our time (a back-water, however, in the 1970s)

[@david203]

When the Schrödinger equation is presented in just the right way (the Wigner transform), you can see clearly how it moves from describing QM states in very small isolated systems to describing Newtonian mechanics in large systems immersed in an environment with influences such as temperature and viscosity. This transition to classical mechanics can also be seen by the density matrix transitioning from having off-diagonal elements (the pure quantum states) to being a diagonal matrix (in the classical case).

[@larryplympton9727]

Your explanations are so clear and concise, and your presentation style makes the experience of learning incredibly enjoyable. Thank you very much for for all the time and effort you put into making these videos.

[@calbearstein9196]

Jade, you’re like the daughter I never had. You help viewers get excited about learning subjects they think they never could! Great work.

[@peepaghost671]

6:18 Thanks for the derivation. I believed you, by inspection, but I like to see where it comes from.

[@brb4903]

There's no derivations for this eq

[@paulineoyweri1035]

@@brb4903 your voice is low

[@mihailmilev9909]

@@paulineoyweri1035 wtf

[@ankurghosh2387]

Best video explaination of Schrödinger equation on the internet

[@psivil.disobedience]

I wish I could’ve shown this to my physics professor years ago 😂 This is excellent work, I’m beyond impressed at the amount of information you packed into this segment. I’m subbed & will be binge watching your channel during down time until Im caught up, so I guess I’m a rl stan now 🙂

[@mthokozisimtetwa9633]

Beautiful and Brilliant(not the website).... my goodness some people are just amazing.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Very well thought out, Jade 😊

[@pranjalverma3501]

hey,I don't know you also comment on other youtube channels

[@feynstein1004]

Duuuuuude, you're here too? Awesome

[@ScienceAsylum]

pranjal verma, I do occasionally when I really like a video.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Feynstein 100, I'm everywhere! (Also, Jade and I are friends.)

[@sunkingarthur]

The Science Asylum Until we observe you?

[@f-xdemers2825]

This equation was the wall which I never could clear because it involves imaginary numbers (complex numbers) and accepting that it described reality was accepting that reality could never be understood, even at it's simplest level. I tried for a year to transpose this equation into one that would use " real numbers" and failed. I am a lawyer now.

[@AndrewCoyneG]

Awesome. I’m not a physicist but learning more. Your explanations are thoughtful, interesting, and help to build an intuition for dense topics. Thanks!

[@ar00042]

My (grade10) class: *Has a physics test tomorrow* Me: *learning out of syllabus quantum physics*

[@testing0911]

Same here bro

[@goosefx]

my grade (10) is learning chemistry, while i’m learning quantum physics lmao. (grade 11 is physics for me)

[@liveandletlive3474]

R/iamverysmart

[@finnwilliams830]

r/ihavereddit

[@liveandletlive3474]

@@finnwilliams830 So what if you do?

[@CODE7X]

Cant be more better , I have happy finally i am grown enough to actually study this in my educational curriculum and come here to understand it fully.

[@Hecatonicosachoron]

Is the presenter wearing a *12 tone* t-shirt??? I'm impressed! One of my favorite channels!

[@upandatom]

yes 12tone is great!

[@GetzGoth]

Hecatonicosachoron Her shirt brought me here...

[@Hecatonicosachoron]

Cool explanation, it's very clear. I think that the point of promoting classical observables to operators could be stated directly (especially since there is no a priori reason for doing so).

[@williamlangley1610]

I've had coursework in quantum particle physics and struggled to get the gist of it (basically, it's not possible to fully understand how these little fellas can do all this "weird" stuff...ya just gotta accept particle-wave, uncertainty, tunneling, superposition, and entanglement...until further notice.) You have an amazing ability to get it across to others who don't understand it!! (I am a college tutor and am always amazed at your ability to "break it down and explain it".) Thank you, Jade!!

[@satrickptar6265]

4:22 Quantum Tunneling: Am I a joke to you?

[@adriansheard1032]

I think the box is meant to represent an infinite square well.

[@brahmaduttamahapatra4222]

Lol

[@nelskowronek331]

lmao

[@williamkamenel2362]

Good recovery!

[@rulezzx-]

Adrian Sheard yes it is

[@AleaTeo]

The Wave function doesnt tell you where the electron is likely yo be. It is the square of the wave function. The Wave function itself has no physical interpretación, and it's not just a detail. It's fundamental.

[@lorrinbarth1969]

Or, the wave function really is an electron and when measured the law of conservation of energy limits that measurement to one place. Otherwise, it would be infinite energy.

[@marwa1698]

this is what i call creativity studying for a whole semester to simplify it for an audience who is interested in it keep going

[@shre6619]

For the derivation, i have been taught that we usually take the general form of waves as A*sin(wt ± kx).

[@upandatom]

look into euler's identity

[@shre6619]

Ok thanks,

[@SamChaneyProductions]

Love the 12-tone shirt! It makes me happy that other physicists and mathematicians appreciate music theory. Thanks for the video!

[@jurjenbos228]

Maybe you could make an item about a music subject.

[@DinoDudeDillon]

Believe it or not, fourier analysis is actually a link between the two subjects (music theory and quantum mechanics).

[@SamChaneyProductions]

@@DinoDudeDillon I do believe it. I'm pretty obsessed with frequency modulation synthesis and the harmonic series as well as quantum mechanics. There are some astounding parallels in our universe

[@staticofmasses3166]

@@SamChaneyProductions sound engineer, musician, synth enthusiast here. Awesome how we all end up studying this stuff as it is incredibly relative.

[@kuyaleinad4195]

Music theory involves waves due to sound waves so it can be surprisingly helpful when I was learning spectroscopy 😂

[@swathijanu6653]

I am from India and I am studying quantum chemistry, when i found many videos on schrodinger equation, i just randomly clicked yours but trust me when i listened i feel much better about my schrodinger equation. thank you so much.

[@Roberto-REME]

Great video and, I must say, you are a great explainer. You provide information in an easy way to understand and, most important, in a fun and compelling manner. Well done.

[@francissreckofabian01]

Did the box have air holes??? I'm just sayin'. Why didn't I have teachers like you at school. You are enthusiastic and personable. I might have turned out intelligent! (My whole life has been potential energy)

[@upandatom]

I'm sure you're intelligent. It's time to turn that potential energy into kinetic energy!

[@FacePalmProduxtnsFPP]

"Don't let yo dreams be dreams kid!" (Probably not a kid 😂) your life is what you make of it!

[@AdamTait-hy2qh]

First he must realise; a box never has holes, by definition. Or it aint a box.

[@fahimkhan-tj1cu]

Same here.trying to understand everything and not getting them.Anyways,the video was a really really relly great one.It builds up quite an understanding and the style you explainis great.love from Bangladesh.

[@bumpty9830]

Eco Geek You sound like a mathematician. Humor me: how far off am I?

[@Shogun507]

This HAS to be the best explanation on KZbin for this particular topic. This helped me understand the topic in 9 minutes while my professor spent hours on this!

[@paoloo8859]

4:58 wasn't Einstein who discovered the relation between Energy and frequency but Max Planck in 1900, with the astonishing Planck postulate

[@Ni999]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%E2%80%93Einstein_relation Planck originally thought that h was a placeholder. Einstein solidified it. You can call _E=hf_ by any of its popular names without robbing Planck of any credit. Remember, E=pc E=hc/λ E=hf The point isn't the connection between energy and frequency - it's the connection of momentum to a massless object based on its wavelength and the quantum scale. Frequency is just good bookkeeping and very handy.

[@paoloo8859]

@@Ni999 thanks. I'd add that what matters isn't simply a relation between E and f but the fact that h is a constant, so that energy get quantized and has only discrete values; but that aspect is very well explained in the video

[@69erthx1138]

It's like becoming the, "Jesus of physics," Then suddenly, Peter Griffin can top that weekend. 😎

[@69erthx1138]

@@Ni999 To quote my late high school physics teacher, Rory Dickens, delta E to delta f = h slope.

[@WhatchuLookingAt101]

E = h × (1/T) [1/T = Frequency] h = Planck's constant

[@canyadigit6274]

This was the best explanation I’ve ever seen. You make it so understandable. Most videos of the schrödigner equation doesn’t really talk about what each individual symbol means. But yours did.

[@inigoantony9029]

The simplicity of your explanasion is highly appreciated. Best one in KZbin

[@Phrenotopia]

I suck at math and formulas but you explained it in a way that I could follow very well!

[@nabeeghahmed8530]

your speaking style at 7:09 blew my heart of my body!!

[@petersall1055]

what the hell was that, i almost expected her to take out a whip

[@wolframalpha8634]

😂😂😂😂

[@pigeonlove]

You should get out more, mommy's boy

[@unmesh_peri]

Animation is Top notch and explanation is mind blowing

[@Tabshura]

Your videos are getting better and better! And the animation is very nice too!

[@upandatom]

thank you :)

[@JuiceBlack]

I love videos on quantum mechanics and this is probably one of the easiest to understand. Your delivery and explanation was clear and pretty easy to follow 👍🏽 good stuff! Also that was the first time (in years of watching videos on the topic) that the reasoning/correlation behind the discrete energy levels and wavelength was made clear

[@anushkakulkarni2238]

She was awesomee ..Professor dave explains this very easily too

[@boydmccollum692]

Seems a better analogy than a kid in her room would be a kid let loose in a big apartment store. You get high a high probability that they may be in the toy section or the sports section or in the candy section, etc., but they could also be traveling between those places when you actually look. Even if they were in the toy section, they could be in front of one toy, or another, or playing randomly with a toy along the aisle somewhere. As a parent, I can assure you that raising a child can be very quantum, especially when you’re looking for them.

[@Aperfull]

Thanks for adding the proof!!!! It's so beautiful to see how from one simple concept like energy conservation one can get such interesting equations!

[@mikes4163]

Well, that's the first time I actually feel I understand a tiny bit about quantum physics - ie, what wave function actually means and it's connection with discrete energy levels. Super video.

[@vsbvsb5872]

Quantum mechanics is not something that can be tamed by everyone....I gave up physics just because of this... But whenever I see your video I feel that even these concepts can also be mastered irrespective of how difficult they are..... That gives a positive energy..... So please keep uploading videos ..... and let your talent give hope to others who think Physics is hopeless for them....🙂🙂🙂👍🏽

[@ashtha3785]

VSB VSB yes i agree

[@cristiangamboa2037]

Thank you for explaining this to people like me, who are very interested in physics but have not have the chance to actually study physics in college.

[@paritoshattri672]

Actually its chemistry sis😂

[@sarthakgirdhar2833]

@@paritoshattri672 it's quantum mechanics. Attribute it to any subject, physics or chemistry. But there's something you must know; it's more physics than chemistry. Guess you are in class XI right now.

[@aventador444]

@@paritoshattri672 you do realise chemistry is basically applied physics which is essentially applied maths. At higher levels all 3 subjects merge and there is no longer really much separation between them.

[@adireddisrinivas5135]

You are phenomenal, it makes sense to me now. I couldn't ask for for more.

[@upandatom]

n_n

[@RamasamyArumugam1927]

Thank you, Madam, 🙏for the wonderful videos on science and mathematics. I am from India and studied for a few semesters of physics before switching to medicine. I am still interested in physics(especially quantum mechanics, cosmology and the theory of relativity), philosophy ( I happened to visit the Bertrand Russel Archives in Canada in August) and mathematics. You make my life easier by presenting certain aspects of modern science ( physics/mathematics etc. that interest me most. As a physician, I do have not enough time to read the original papers etc on physics. When I was a student at the University of Vienna, I was supposed to stay in a hostel next to the house where Erwin schrädinger was supposed to have lived. I remember having read a book titled " In Search of Schrodinger's Cat " which gave me a brief introduction to quantum mechanics. I have already subscribed to your channel and whenever I have time I would watch your KZbin videos.

[@greymind0072]

Can we all take a minute and appreciate this girl's hardwork and such a sweet way of explaining things...... lethal combination of beauty + brain + sweet!

[@aniketgupta5750]

If she will teach me, I am ready to do phd in chemistry. She is soo good. A great teacher

[@souravsahoo1582]

Yea see bro..how much talent..you not find here

[@souravsahoo1582]

Hum logo ko to semester ei khatam ho jata hey gangeri teacher sey

[@aniketgupta5750]

@@souravsahoo1582 bhai mazak tha 😂😂,waise samjhane ka tarika acha tha iska aur ek aur baat ye video maine tab dekha jab first semester me panda sir ne hume schrodinger padhaya tha aur tune abhi dekha hai

[@souravsahoo1582]

@@aniketgupta5750 sala humlog ka eiha kaha kya gangeri teacher a jate hey..eisse pa jau to pure rat padhunga ..kitab phad ke rakh dunga bhai 😂😂😝😝

[@aniketgupta5750]

@@souravsahoo1582 bilkul bhai☺😊

[@compellingpoint7802]

So, basically, the Schrödinger equation is a quantum mechanical wave function which describes how electron orbitals combine to form atoms. These experiments helped explain the structure of atoms and molecules. These experiments showed that quantum mechanics is indeed correct, and the Schrödinger equation will be used to develop new technologies in many different areas. Applications include how atoms form molecules, which are two or more atoms bonded together. Very important for creating drugs and new materials. Also, the Schrödinger equation can be used to describe interactions between electrons and nuclei. In chemistry, quantum mechanics is useful for explaining how electron orbitals are formed in atoms.

[@timothyneiswander3151]

Thank you, now I understand well enough to explain it to my cat who is understandably apprehensive.

[@prateekkumar1912]

CORRECTION: At 1:00, instead of ħ, ħ/2 should come.

[@int16_t]

Right, or h/4pi

[@redandbluegamingred8977]

Indian

[@davelister591]

Very well done Jade. Without overly extending the explanation as is and thus making it less comprehensible, I'd try to include brief allusions to the following with possibly links to further details:- The wave function itself - how and why it's form was chosen, i.e. why is it complex, what's its relation to Euler's identity, why did it need to be wave-like to begin with etc. A reminder on what k are w are and what they represent in the wave function. A reminder where the de Broglie relation comes from, the matter wavelength relation to momentum and how k fits into that and why. A quick work through the Schrödinger equation derivation you gave the briefest snapshot of - it is very good, clear and concise but may overwhelm those new to it, without an explanation of what is being substituted into where and when. A justification as to why squaring the wave function yields the probability function of finding the electron at each location. EDIT: Just found your What is The Quantum Wave Function, Exactly video, excellent.

[@anujarora0]

You deserve way more subscribers btw our electrons are so cute

[@BlackCroLong]

You are in a superstate of being beautiful and a mathematician at the same time.

[@TheTransitmtl]

Her appearance should not have any impact here and you would never talk that way of a male scientist.

[@pushprajbhardwaj4820]

@@TheTransitmtl there is nothing wrong in appreciating the beauty you find.

[@hamburger9677]

@@TheTransitmtl it’s just a compliment shush

[@hwillis7570]

I took this as an undergrad, I wish you were my physics teacher 40 years ago. Keep up your good work ; a motivating explanation. I enjoyed listening to you.

[@dnrob7]

2:48 one of those cats looks super guilty of murder

[@ChanPrue]

For those of you trying to make it through the derivation, dPsi/dx is a partial derivative, meaning that omega and t are treated as constants. This is often shown as sigmaPsi/sigmax. P.S. Thank you for making a video that shows the math, and doesn't just say "...and that goes beyond the scope of this video"

[@dozog]

Though i hope nobody is getting their PhD from watching KZbin. LoL

[@rammurtisharma07]

Your degree of happiness while explaining the concept is marvelous. You enjoy the teaching and transfer the same to the viewers.

[@brianwgDK]

You are doing a tremendous good job explaining it so it's more understandable 👍😁

[@KhAnubis]

„Hi, I‘m Jade, lovely to meet you“ Yeah, I have a feeling we‘ve already met... (Also, great video! Loved all the sound effects)

[@upandatom]

Thanks Willie!

[@puppypi9668]

I actually hadn't met her until this video so it was perfect XD

[@a.syndeed]

I loved your energy. This explanation was very simple and concise. And as a person with ADHD, this is one of the few videos that could keep me hooked all the way through.

[@tarekchahattou]

you're such a good teacher, thank you! 😄

[@NotBob223]

Jade, this is an absolutely brilliant video that has dramatically simplified the "mechanics" of the Schrödinger Equation for me. I still take issue with a few of the "Interpretations" around what it represents in that I do not believe that the particle/wave are a single entity but rather that the particle is guided by the wave which can exist without a particle - AKA Pilot Wave Theory/De Broglie/Bohmian Mechanics. Nevertheless, I grant that this is still unprovable (as is the Copenhagen Interpretation you refer to) and will have to wait for someone to come up with an experiment that can prove the foundations/interpretations one way or the other. As Schrodinger's Equation is important for all types of quantum mechanics, we're in debt to you for doing such a great job of simplifying it for us. I'm going to bury myself in your paper now... Love your (Kiwi?) accent!

[@upandatom]

I'm glad you enjoyed it! I hope you can learn something from the paper as well. And I'm Aussie haha

[@NotBob223]

I'm sure the Kiwi's will forgive me. You do have a very mild Aussie accent. I'll come back here with any comments. Thanks again.

[@xtieburn]

BM actually disagrees with experiment, and as far as we can currently tell is therefore wrong. This is quite a deep rabbit hole to go down, but you can start here: dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2017.81006 This is actually a paper on how the underlying concept of BM is not ruled out even if BM in particular is, but its just the entrance to the hole. In the introduction to the paper you will find a series of references to a long running back and forth over the issue. Which itself is only one part of a broader debate with experimentation looking for testable differences. However, the last papers appeared to clear up the issues Bohmian physicists had with it, and it has remained unchallenged for quite some time. I couldnt say it was down for the count; BM has been on the ropes a few times over the years e.g. ESSWs surreal trajectories, and other similar work, and it managed to get back up. That said, contrary to some online myths that its only been ignored as an unfortunate historical mistake, thats only one factor in why its never knocked CI off the top spot, and hasnt appeared to manage the growth in popularity Many Worlds has. Its almost always been an uphill struggle to make it work at all, and while conceptually it might be easier for laymen, it doesnt appear to have ever been a particularly useful model for any progress in the field. (Nor has MW as far as I can tell, but its implications are simultaneously very neat in multiple senses of the word, and fantastically mind blowing.) This is all ignoring the fact that even if this can be resolved, its still a long way off working with something akin to Quantum Field Theory/Relativity if indeed its possible for it to work in that context at all. Its fascinating, I hope some small group continues to work on it, but by comparison, and especially in light of the recent evidence here, I wouldnt put money on it being correct but what the hell do I know. Im just a random youtube comment on the Internet. Have a read of the papers, try read around them as well even if its just because its really interesting stuff, and see what you think.

[@NotBob223]

I will have a look but every time I've seen someone say it has been disproven by experiment or by Feyman or von Neumann, it's been demonstrated to be false. That said, I appreciate the link as I do try to devour anything on QM whether or not it agrees with my intuition.

[@NotBob223]

Oh, it's Sofia again... I've read lots of her stuff and she's a well known and prolific anti-Bohmian. She's been bringing up the Ghose "proofs" which were easily disproven in 2001 (basically they used restricted initial positions of the particles when doing the BM calculations but allowed unrestricted initial positions with Standard QM calculations which is why they ended up with differing results. When you let BM have unrestricted initial positions, it fully agrees with the results of SQM). Here's just one of the papers disproving their "results". arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0108038v1. Bohmian Mechanics has not been disproven and in fact more and more mainstream physicists are giving it a second look (that said, most physicists don't want to focus on Foundations and unprovable Interpretations and as long as the Math works (which it does for MW, CI and PWT/BM) could care a less about the quantum formalism used. Anyway, I'll have a read of this latest paper but the fact she starts off with statements like BM has been disproved by Ghose and herself, doesn't make me hopeful she's found anything new.

[@felipeberlim3587]

As someone who knows only highschool physics, I never understood what “collapsing the wave function” meant. Your explanation was perfect and I learned something new. You got a new subscriber! Thank you!

[@PK-eb9gs]

I really love your explanation it is really helpful for the preparation of IIT . Love from India !

[@juzoli]

I never really liked Schrodinger’s cat as an explanation, I think it is quite misleading, and builds the wrong intuition. It makes the impression that “observing” a particle means we, as humans have to look at it, and that is the observation. In the reality, the cat is NOT in superposition, it is either dead or alive, not both. Any interaction with the particle (like hitting the wall, or other particle, or cat) collapses the wave function. So the cat makes the observation, by interacting with it, long before we open the box, and it either dies/survives. At what time we get to know about it is irrelevant from physics perspective.

[@BugRib]

Zoltán Juhász - Agree with you That Schrödinger’s Cat does a disservice to the public perception of quantum physics. Also, the notion that “observation” collapses the wave function. This leads people to think there’s some supernatural quality to consciousness that is needed to make things happen. It should just be explained as “interaction (rather than ‘observation’) changes the state of particles (duh!).” Right?

[@xtieburn]

To be fair to Schrodinger, that was kind of the point. If you read the paper (and I recommend you do, its an easy find on google.) It was a reductio ad absurdum. Cats arnt alive and dead, its surely not how it works, and therefore they are missing something. (Which turned out to be the minutiae of decoherence.) Its a bit odd that an example of how it surely cant work* often gets used as an example of how it does work. I blame it on the popularity of cats. *I suppose if you brought a cat down to near zero Kelvin, in extremely controlled conditions far beyond anything weve managed to date, then you might be able to get a system that large in to a provably quantum state. Though at that point, whether the cat is going to survive the ordeal has probably become quite evident...

[@juzoli]

Ryan Clark Right. The same goes for observing a photon in the double slit experiment, maybe that is a simpler case. You cannot observe a photon. You can only capture it, and release another, similar photon continuing its track. It is because a photon cannot change its course, or speed, doesn’t experience time, hence doesn’t experience any event. For a photon, there is only the point of creation, and destruction, nothing in between. I guess the same underlying law causes both phenomena.

[@juzoli]

Bob Spitfire Yep, I’m pretty sure Schrodinger knew what he was talking about, but it got lost in translation:)

[@BugRib]

Zoltán Juhász - So, doesn’t the double slit experiment only behave differently under “observation” because the detector is bouncing photons off of the electrons (or something like that)? Or is it actually more mysterious than that?

[@mrmagootoo]

Amazing! A stunningly clear explanation of a fundamentally complex subject. You should be required watching for all science teachers.

[@dylanparker130]

enjoyed this video :) suggestion: if it's a topic of interest, i'd love to see a video about the physics of fluids please!

[@so_dumbshu]

I'll wear a mask and say "I may be handsome, I may be not, here's the equation find it yourself".

[@alejandrogon1719]

If someone works hard enough they can find the probability that you are handsome 😂

[@rg-pu9nz]

Waaawo.. I have studied this course 20 years ago but amazed to see younger generations has a better understanding of it.. Well done

[@MrVodkapowered]

"up an atom!" "Up and at them!" Rainier wolfcastle 🤣

[@paulhargreaves9103]

t l ~ you are in the wrong class ~