What is Quantum Mechanics Really Trying to Tell us about Reality? Featuring

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Thanks so much for the collab Arvin, quantum mechanics is eternally fascinating to me!

[@saniyagamer-xd2oq]

What happened when we live detector on and not observering during experiment on particles ?

[@voodoochile7581]

Sabine, I follow your channel. Great to see you here!

[@smlanka4u]

Binary Mechanics is better. I have published a paper about it. Binary dimensions could make wave functions and other processes mathematically. Arguebly, a mathematical universe is somewhat deterministic. But spontaneous/new possibilities that may impact the current structures/particles would make it look like undeterministic.

[@saniyagamer-xd2oq]

@@smlanka4u आपको हिंदी आतीं हैं भाई ?

[@vibaj16]

Something that's always bugged me: If the wave in the double slit experiment is just a probability wave determining how likely the electron is to be in any given place, why would that wave interact with matter (i.e., the matter that makes up the walls around the slits)? Wouldn't the wave have to be something physical in the universe to interact with other physical objects?

[@yashen12345]

WOW i genuinely didnt think id walk out of this video learning something new since iv spent years binging quantum mechanics videos but u just taught me about penrose gravitational collapse ! this is why i keep coming back to your channel. its not just regurgitated talking points. u take it a step futher

[@fdsfds7339]

Literally same.

[@Masterofwayshowers]

All hypothetically thoughts,,I don't think gravitational collapse is possible ,for it to happen it has to overcome the fields of matter

[@carlodave9]

Me too! I never got how quantum theory could connect to the multiverse idea until this video. Great! But there must be better ways of visually illustrating it than showing 4 separate Worlds side by side, each with a probablistic position of the Q particle. Why not many translucent 'world' graphics stacked like a deck of cards (each with a different opaque particle position) and shuttled through in animated motion to give a slightly more intuitive suggestion of the 'wave' aspect of probablistic wave pattern interference traveling through multi-worlds? I know this still can't capture the seemingly impossible and mind-blowing nature of the idea, but would certainly reinforce it better visually.

[@toymaker3474]

so after watching many many videos on qm, what is light?

[@NondescriptMammal]

This really is the best channel I've found for explaining difficult physics concepts without oversimplifying or condescending to the viewer

[@justchecking905]

The clearest, most sensible explanation of alternative views of QM wave functions I have ever seen. Thank you Arvin!! - J. D. German, Retired Physicist

[@shaneforshort]

​@@pauldirc..😂 Did you find out yet?

[@Arch009]

@@pauldirc.. what is meaning?

[@doloreslehmann8628]

I'll use an analogy to try to get my thoughts across: Imagine you throw a die in the air. Which number does it show? Well, all of them simultanously, right? It is undefined. Now, a collapse of the wave function would be comparable to the die landing on a table surface, with just one side, and therefore one number, facing upwards. A many-worlds-situation would mean the die hits six different tables in six different worlds at the same time, showing a different side up on each of them. Superdeterminism would mean that, for some mechanism we haven't quite understood yet, only one of the six sides could possibly face upwards. But what if the measurent wasn't like the die hitting any surface at all? What if it was more like us taking a photo of the die when it passes? The photo would show just one of the sides, giving us a measurement result, but the die would continue flying through the air. So, we would have one definite result that would define our subjective reality, as we would interact only with this, but the objective reality would remain undefined. Is there a model for this situation?

[@psiphisapiens]

There’s been a refreshing turn around in science communication lately. Videos about physics have evolved from entertainment to education, finally. Thank you.

[@velocirapper8862]

This is my favorite science channel. You explain things just perfectly for me to understand and you go further in depth than most other people and still explain it better.

[@ArvinAsh]

Much appreciated!

[@phalsgun]

Hi Arvin, really love your videos. It may seem like you are talking about same concepts repetitively in your videos, but you do explain it in different ways every time. That really helps me in understanding these concepts as a science enthusiast. I always watch and enjoy both of your videos.

[@ArvinAsh]

Thanks for that. Yes, I repeat some of the same stuff in different ways because I feel these are not easy concepts to understand and require multiple views from different angles.

[@paulc96]

@@ArvinAsh Having said that Arvin, and being a longtime follower of your excellent channel, I would like to remind you of something you said in one of your earlier, recent videos. I'm sorry I can't remember which one it is right now, but you said (to paraphrase) : "the Future is Quantum Mechanical, and the Past is Classical". I would have thought that this idea was worth repeating. As an amateur myself, I have no idea if this is actually correct, but it strikes me a a very profound, metaphysical concept. I am surprised that more other physicists have not addressed this concept, (maybe Lee Smolin has - not sure). Could you perhaps make another video that looks further into this interesting idea? Your KZbin videos on QM and particle physics are some of the very best at explaining these things in a comprehensible way. And I include Brian Greene, Neil deG Tyson, Sabine H. and Matt O'Dowd at PBS, in my list. So I would like to say : Thank you very much Arvin and please them coming. All the Best, Paul C.

[@paulc96]

Since I wrote the comment/reply above, I have watched the video : "Nobody Knows What TIME Really Is. But it might be this." (featuring Lee Smolin). Thanks Arvin - that was really good. Worth saving and re-watching.

[@moses777exodus]

Quantum Physics has shown that Reality is based on Probabilities. A statistical impossibility is defined as *_“a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument."_* The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of a functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more *Rational and Reasonable* to conclude that the cell was not formed by undirected random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.) Furthermore, of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/ 10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more *Rational and Reasonable* to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer while trying to determine the origin of the universe. A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely *Irrational and Unreasonable* hypotheses are what many of the world’s top scientists _‘must’_ believe in and promote because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview. Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, Information, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millenia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by discoveries in Quantum Physics.

[@paulcooper1046]

@@moses777exodus Your premises that you base your reasoning on are arbitrary and subjective. We are also a part of the universe trying to understand the universe, which is inherently problematic. Our primate brains are limited as well relative to what it is that we are trying to understand. To your credit, you put effort into your attempt to clarify your points and write well in English, which is a breath of fresh air on KZbin. Cheers, mate...☀

[@Arsenic71]

Oh wow, two of my favourite physics KZbinrs collaborating, absolutely fascinating! Thank you very much to both of you!

[@quantumdecoherence1289]

Beautiful presentation Arvin. Your channel is the clearest and easiest to follow and the graphics/visuals are second to none in helping to understand these complex topics.

[@SIASLbyRAH]

I really needed this. Thanks for making it! And for including Sabine too!!

[@kidzbop38isstraightfire92]

Two of my fave physics channels in one! Great job Arvin and Sabine

[@laurendoe168]

From what I understand, Einstein also favored Super-determinism. As I understand it, he believed there were factors that we have yet to discover which would remove the probability aspect of quantum mechanics.

[@leonardodecarlo7101]

stop to talk about interpretation, that is not understood physics. There could be some macroscopic correction that doesn't appear in the microscopic equations. "Particles" are just a epiphenomena from our perspective, of course microscopic world is made by non-local field and the macroscopic corrections that we miss have to localize things. About random dots, forming the interference pattern, no surprise that we see single dots appearing one at a time instead of the pattern all at one: even if the "particle" spreads out in space of course the evolution will conserve the energy, so there is not enough energy to make react more than one single photographic grain at a time. And the dots appearing randomly here and there... are strong chaos. And... maybe we will discover that there was no quantized world... and maybe we will go back to real physics (the one we can see with our eyes) instead of doing science fiction (quantum gravity and string theory) and stealing huge public money for mega-accelerators where we have no idea of what is going on inside (it is ridiculous to construct that things when you can no perform a proper analysis of Stern-Gerlach).

[@laurendoe168]

@@leonardodecarlo7101 Interesting hypothesis!

[@leonardodecarlo7101]

@@laurendoe168 thanks, I am writing a work on the idea. Showing that if you want to explain phase transitions in a magnet from Schrodinger dynamics you need higher order corrections when N is very large. The same correction give an explanation of random outcomes in a spin measurement. Remember that you can prove that under some conditions a chaotic system can be mapped into a Markov chain. To me it looks natural that somewhere there is a non-linearity that makes emerge a classical world. The real issue from last century is connecting the micro with the macro, they wanted to explain physics at smaller at smaller scale.. but quite arrogant looking for a theory of everything when you can not derive Newton from your microscopic equations or explain random dots on a screen. This is the modern physics era. So stat. mech. stayed unjustified and GR incompatible with quantum ..bizzare that everyone wants to test GR which is perfect in any prediction and applications and not QM that is terrible everywhere...

[@clmasse]

No, the views of Einstein are always misrepresented. He had his own, better way of tackling quantum mechanics. It is just a shame that he is scorned like that by inferior physicists.

[@yziib3578]

Einstein did not favoured super-determinism. Einstein thought that quantum reality was deterministic and local. Super-determinism is something different and the concept did not exist when Einstein was alive. John Bell, Bell's inequality is an experimental way of testing Einstein theory and it fas been falsified. Bell's inequality was derived from 3 assumptions of Einstein quantum theory and given the experimental results he may have reluctantly changed from a deterministic to a super-deterministic belief about reality. But this is something we will not know.

[@DarkMatter1919]

It's amazing how far we've come to understanding the rules of the universe... It seems like there's even more amazing times and discoveries ahead of us.

[@rwarren58]

This is right up there with the speed of quantum entanglement or freezing a photon to absolute zero and watching reality refuse to allow precise measurements. It’s just plain spooky! Thanks for graphic showing the wave function collapse. It really cleared things up. And a special thanks for bringing Sabine as well. I never miss her channel.

[@AB-et6nj]

"Shut up and calculate" isn't how Einstein revolutionized the field. Physicists need to think about these outcomes. If physics was just about calculating then we wouldn't even need physicists, we'd just use computers for that which are much better at shutting up and calculating

[@LuisAldamiz]

Ditto.

[@SolidSiren]

Shutup and calculate came from Feynman. It pretty much refers to one interpretation of QM. All physicists know Einstein wasn't comfortable with the implications of the results he saw in his time. They think ENDLESSLY about the experiments, and what they truly mean. You are treading in Dunning Kruger waters it feels like. Every physicist has their own interpretation, and ideas. And most think for themselves. And no, we wouldn't just use computers. Shutup and calculate refers to the idea that what matters most are the predictions- and they are ASTOUNDINGLY accurate, moreso than even GR, and that brings us to the other point. Einstein didn't know the entire story, and even though relativity is correct innumerable times, in many ways, it has its failures in some places. Like Newtonian physics before it, relativity too must be overcome by a better, more fundamental theory. Or perhaps, there is no grand unification theory and we will just have to accept slightly less eloquent a solution to describe that little old...all of our universe and reality within it. 😄

[@SolidSiren]

What still is debated is what it means that we can predict things in this way, and if quantum predictions even actually tell us much in the first place. At least as much as we think it does.

[@byamboy]

Congratulations on this amazing achievement! I have been taught many things I thought I knew and could finally visualize and understand the quantum world in a systemic fashion.

[@mrtransmogrify]

Exciting & informative to see 2 of my fav physics content creators in collab... this is really one plus one = more than 2

[@christianmuller2863]

Danke!

[@ArvinAsh]

Thank you so much!

[@NNiSYS]

As always dear Arvin, your CLARITY is beautiful. Thanks for sharing it!

[@bandongogogo]

Yeah!! Dr. Sabine!!!! this is sooooo cooooooooool!!!!!!!!!! we need more of these collabs!!!

[@scudder991]

Outstanding, Arvin! Especially your graphics explaining individual electron waves in the double-slit experiment. But why no mention of the fact that "which-way knowledge" (knowing which slit the electron passed through) completely eliminates that interference pattern in the exact same experiment? Love your channel sir!

[@big-ez]

yes. i was wondering the same.

[@hero227]

"Quantum mechanics as we teach it in textbooks is not so much a 'theory' as a set of rules dressed in a trenchcoat." - Sean Carroll

[@dwightk.schrute8696]

What was the last prediction that QM made that actually panned out?

[@NondescriptMammal]

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." - Richard Feynman, who shared a Nobel Prize in physics for his work in quantum electrodynamics

[@clmasse]

@@dwightk.schrute8696 QM can't make predictions, it is but a language.

[@LuisAldamiz]

@@dwightk.schrute8696 - Higgs boson.

[@ismotahtinen1079]

​@@dwightk.schrute8696 Quantum mechanics is used every day to predict the behavior of microscopic systems. A more meaningful question would be when was the last time QM prediction didn't pan out. The answer is never, so far QM has always been right.

[@jorgeolivar3712]

I really enjoy your videos. I like the mindset you have on science. I read books and watch videos about science, but the videos I enjoy the most, are your videos. Excellent job

[@TT-tn6mh]

قاعد اختم قناتك مقطع مقطع، شيء حلو وبسيط و وواضح بعيد عن الانحياز للأشخاص 👍🏻 اتعلم من اليوتيوب اكثر من الجامعات والدراسة بالتوفيق للجميع 🙏🏻❤️

[@xXYourShadowDaniXx]

Loved the physical interpretations of wave collapse, it would be cool to get a longer video on these with 3d examples! Would also be cool to see a video specifically about the barrier between physical/quantum world, the size, why its hard to find/describe, etc.

[@schmetterling4477]

There is no such thing as a wave function collapse. That's just a total misunderstanding of what is really going on.

[@thebrothersdude]

Such a great video Arvin! it's always incredible to see great physics KZbinrs coming together to make some really informative media, I always love to hear Sabines opinions, I think being no BS is great for science education!

[@jeancorriveau8686]

Once again, Arvin asks the right questions (Sabine as well). Very informative video! Once the following two questions are answered, perhaps, we'll know what reality is. What is the probability wave function? How does quantum measurement occur? These may involve philosophical discussions, but the answers must be physical. For instance, the many-world interpretation is mathematical, not physical. The reason is that, if correct, the same energy (needed to produce the particle at measurement) must manifest itself into different universes. This would imply that (1) the energy comes from outside these universes, and (2) this energy is shared, so, diluted, meaning that the particles wouldn't possess enough energy to exist.

[@alexgonzo5508]

I think the answer can probably be found at the intersection between entropy and anti-entropy and how information is produced or extracted from entropy by an anti-entropic system (conscious observer). At least that's where my thinking goes when i ponder the two questions you posed.

[@jeancorriveau8686]

@@alexgonzo5508 Not that because there is no conscious observer. The observer might be a detector, or just another quantum particle causing the quantum measurement. What do you mean by anti-entropy?

[@alexgonzo5508]

@@jeancorriveau8686 Those experiments were done in such a way that the results of the experiment were observed by a person, if the results of the detector are permanently destroyed before an observer can see the results then the wave function does not collapse.

[@jeancorriveau8686]

@@alexgonzo5508 Not quite. The collapse occurs, regardless. The interaction between the detector and the particle causes the wave collapse, then the experimenter (you call the observer) observes the outcome. So, the experimenter isn't part of the quantum phenomenon.

[@alexgonzo5508]

@@jeancorriveau8686 What's the difference between the effect of a detector and the effect of some other stray particle or random thing interacting with the photon?

[@debdip7]

Most clear explanation of the wavefunction, or rather what it could possible imply. Kudos to creating this video!!!

[@craigo8598]

Thanks so much Arvin, for helping us to ponder this fascinating and deeply complex universe.

[@robbxander]

Love to see Sabine on other channels. And Arvin, your videos are always on point. Mad props, my dude.

[@Nick-zu9sn]

I can't believe that you did THIS good a job, creating that notion for us, on this ridiculously difficult topic. Thanks Arvin, very much appreciated. Incidentally...a great topic for anyone who needs a dose of true humility ;=)

[@ArvinAsh]

Glad you liked it! Thank you.

[@RubenLopezG]

Is it possible to design an experiment to disprove that consciousness causes wave function collapse? I often hear the argument that the wave function collapses even if no consciousness is aware of the measurement result but I can't think of a reliable way to test that. Any ideas?

[@Boogaboioringale]

@Rube’n Lo’pez: Sure. Before humans are anything else that had consciousness existed, the universe existed including “wave function collapse . It’s not about us seeing anything, it’s about interactions of the particles. We test it all the time when we see what happened in experiments. We don’t know until after it happens

[@deltalima6703]

Any device placed on one slit to nail down "where it went" destroys the pattern. Thus the device itself is just as good as a conscious being. Ps some devices can smear the pattern or "partially wreck it". Its a bit strange tbh.

[@gravoc857]

Go outside at night and look at stars and galaxies. Their light has traveled millions to billions of years to reach us. You’re witnessing wave function collapses that occurred millions to billions of years ago, before the existence of humans.

[@Boogaboioringale]

Delta Lima : Any device is not part of the original experiment. Therefore, you have two experiments that you’re trying to make into one. You’re correct. Covering one slit or measuring beforehand screws up the intended knowledge. Sabine H. has an amazing video on the double slit experiment on KZbin. Just look it up 👍🏾👀

[@RubenLopezG]

@@deltalima6703 Timing doesn't seem to play a role in the wave function collapse, as demonstrated by the delayed choice experiment. As long as the detection happens at some point, and you don't destroy that information (like in the delayed choice quantum eraser), the wave function collapses. As such, it doesn't matter if a conscious being looks at the detection made by the device immediately or a month later. OTOH, one could argue that the fact that you see the interference pattern being destroyed makes you aware of the detection happening, which collapses the wave function. Maybe finding a "zero knowledge proof" would be a good way to disprove the consciousness hypothesis, or at least parts of it.

[@pencilpauli9442]

Sabine sent me here Not good at physics or philosophy, so I really appreciate the clarity of your presentation! Subbed.

[@ArvinAsh]

Awesome, thank you!

[@MaryAnnNytowl]

Here thanks to Sabine! I'm looking over some of your more interesting looking videos, and have enjoyed what Ive seen, so far! Thanks for these videos! 🖖🏼🙂👍🏼❤️❤️

[@xiaomarou9890]

What’s the biggest size of an object to still be a quantum object? Does the double slit experiment work for whole atoms or even molecules?

[@ArvinAsh]

Yes, it works with molecules. Theoretically, it can work with any object, but the bigger objects get, the more difficult it is to isolate them from decoherence.

[@shravanideshpande2058]

❤ from INDIA 🇮🇳 🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳 I have started to understand and enjoy quantum physics thanks to this channel, I have half of this in my high school syllabus so this video helped a lot I'll edit this after I become quantum physicist

[@NPCLIVESMATTER723]

Finally the community is growing, I always wanted to see a fellow Indian on these kind of videos..

[@narensj19]

Even I'm also an Indian 🇮🇳

[@shravanideshpande2058]

@@NPCLIVESMATTER723 have you heard about Indian quantum physicist satyanarendra Bose? Boson particle is named after him

[@NPCLIVESMATTER723]

@@shravanideshpande2058 never knew about it, thanks for sharing

[@janhavideshpande6189]

Indians are smart people

[@robertbutsch1802]

Great video. It always escaped me that the wave function does not in fact attempt to describe in any way the actual quantum world, but rather only describes what we are likely to observe if we make a measurement of it from the vantage point of our classical level world. This makes “quantum weirdness” less nonsensical. Anything we can see signs of but cannot actually see is naturally going to seem weird. Maybe it’s time to conclude that we simply have reached the limits of what science can ever say about the world at the level of the extremely small.

[@btn237]

Why would there be a time limit on how long it takes to get the answer to a question?

[@robertbutsch1802]

@@btn237 That’s a valid point. No reason not to continue to ask for as long as we continue to not get an answer.

[@saifalislamdekna9622]

These were the exact same words for some humans said back to when mankind discovered the use and "creation" of fire some thousands of years ago. And so did some humans after they experienced the power of Newton's formulas. The moment humans believe they have reached their limits, mass extinction will be an inevitable outcome. Humans and all of species have survived because of their thrive to know and learn and discover, without this simple and basic idea, evolution stops and collapses on itself.

[@tim40gabby25]

@@btn237 ... but perhaps timely to wonder if it is possible that no TOE will be found because there isn't one - the very small and very large remain unreconcilable.

[@ebrelus7687]

Saying something is unexplainable is not scientific, adding new magic variables or pseudoparticles with catchy names adding complexity to known equations is even worse. Staying with old equations you at least have a chance to notice old errors instead of adding new one on top of old ones ;-D

[@pprroodduuccttiioonn]

The best video I've seen so far to help me understand the pure basics of Quantum Mechanics.

[@ominollo]

Fascinating! I am glad you included SH 🙂

[@Craefter]

I still have trouble wrapping my head around the concept of a photon as a multi-dimensional "wave" structure, flying billions of years (okay, time stops for a photon) through space and all this time the wave stays contained within a certain area. I am always mixing it up with water waves which get lost in the signal to noise ratio as the wave spreads and get mixed of with the other waves. Why is this not happening to photons or electrons? Or are these too big? Is the containment maybe being done on string levels? In other words, why is my body not spreading out? As for collapsing or interacting with other wave particles, are there any theories how these waves can exercise their wave properties on each other? Would the interaction always work (if the energy levels are high enough) or is it more of a hit/miss interaction of trillions of combinations within a nano-second? And if a particle collapses and it's wave function gets focused more, will this have a measurable effect on the wave function of neighboring particles because of changes in the quantum field? (I know, one idiot can ask more questions than 10 wise men can answer.)

[@theslay66]

See, that's the whole problem of seeing these wave functions as physical objects, instead of a strictly mathematical representation of a reality that eludes us. We don't know why it work that way. We just know it does. That's what is so frustrating with QM.

[@moegreen3870]

ya i have wondered about many of the same things you are wondering about :) "Why is this not happening to photons or electrons? Or are these too big? Is the containment maybe being done on string levels? In other words, why is my body not spreading out?" my guess is that the outermost bits of your body are spreading out, and the innermost bits are remaining confined due to high interaction density i suspect the situation is analogous or similar to the confinement of solar photons (minus the incredible temperatures involved of course ;p) there are theories that a photon emitted from the center of the Sun can take millions of years to make its way from the center all the way out to the corona and then escape to reach Earth... during those millions of years it is constantly being captured and regenerated and re-emitted and affected by all the other particles it can interact with like electrons and protons and nuclei and so forth. because there are so many zillions of those particles in the high interaction density zones of the Sun, the photon has a very very very long journey before it has any chance of escape hehe... and its trajectory gets altered constantly because those other particles are moving about very violently in very chaotic directions. some of them with incredibly high energy i believe this long journey of the photon has been nicknamed "the random walk" or the "random solar walk" or something akin to that? but once "the photon" has made it all the way to the outer region of the Sun it has some hope in hell of escaping to the cold vacuum of space and speeding off to other planets or asteroid dust or hydrogen gas clouds or what have you :p i think in your body and my body a similar thing is going on with lower energy photons of an infrared frequency making their way to the surface of our skin and then escaping the high confinement density and then they have some atmospheric gas molecules (oxygen, nitrogen, carbon-dioxide, etc) and maybe dust molecules to contend with once they have escaped? the military and others have FLIR instruments upon which our skin radiates alot more infrared photons than our clothing does, and our skin can show up as brighter white than clothing or surroundings on those FLIR view panels

[@moegreen3870]

"I still have trouble wrapping my head around the concept of a photon as a multi-dimensional "wave" structure, flying billions of years (okay, time stops for a photon) through space and all this time the wave stays contained within a certain area." yes this is something i wrestle with as well if a distant star billions of light years away emits a photon, does the photon wave function spread out how far? can it stretch out to many kilometers long? can the wave function stretch out to the scale of light years? this seems mind boggling somehow :p i have no idea since i barely even understand wave functions hehe... but i hope that someday there are experiments done with a double slit, a very long evacuated vacuum tunnel, and a single photon emission source, to see if there are any limits to how far out a wave function can stretch... are there any outer limits to wave function collapse? its very possible that there is no need for such experiments and that it would be a gigantic waste of money... building such a tunnel and the gear needed it is probably millions or maybe billions of dollars... maybe there is just concepts i need to study more to understand them... but somehow experiments are like a walking cane for me, helping me to shuffle along and kinda sorta barely understand some stuff lol :p

[@moegreen3870]

"As for collapsing or interacting with other wave particles, are there any theories how these waves can exercise their wave properties on each other? And if a particle collapses and it's wave function gets focused more, will this have a measurable effect on the wave function of neighboring particles because of changes in the quantum field?" i'm not positive, but i believe these questions fall into the domain of "Quantum Decoherence", a topic i know next to nothing about :p i get the impression that Quantum Decoherence is the various attempts and theories to model and figure out the effects on the larger quantum ensemble when one tiny piece or wave of the ensemble collapses when reading your second question, it made me think of images of "Bohmian Trajectories". they are the only images i know of that relate to quantum objects that give me the impression that they could somehow model the effects of one object collapsing, and what effect this might have on adjacent objects now its possible that the suggestions i am giving you are unintentional red herrings that are unprofitable to investigate lol... i hope this is not the case! i just add this warning because i don't understand the math at all, not one bit! it is totally above my head and paygrade! :p i just get a "vibe" that bohmian trajectories somehow might relate to what you are seeking. and that's only because i don't know of other diagrams that show particle paths all bunched up and crammed next to each other... and adjacency seems like it would be an important factor in the second question you were asking. another reason to be cautious of my suggestion is that maybe a bohmian trajectory does not correspond very well to a schrodinger wave function? i'm not sure... i believe the bohmian trajectories are a certain interpretation of the quantum mechanics, but i barely know what i'm talking about lol doing a google search on these terms "bohm trajectories decoherence" (without the quotes) yielding a bunch of hits, one of which was a paper posted to Arxiv by D.M. Appleby titled "Bohmian Trajectories Post-Decoherence" hopefully some of this stuff can be made sense of... but i find it all extremely confusing... but somehow still interesting! good luck exploring them tunnels sir! :)

[@Craefter]

@@moegreen3870 Thanks you all your elaborate answers, much appreciated. As for the definition of a photon, maybe it is just an energy flux within the quantum electric field. The strength of this perpetuation defines the chance that this spreading wave can cause an interaction with other quantum object/waves. A kind of energy hill which has to be passed like with quantum tunneling. This interaction is actually the photon as we know it. After the interaction the remaining energy can go back moving as a wave. That said, the same wave could end up creating multiple photons at opposing ends of the universe (if the wave creating was unobstructed and omnidirectional). In your tunnel experiment, if we would see 2 photons the scientists would have the decrease the power output to decrease the probability of a photon "event" which would translate to English as "I only transmitted one photon". But yeah, maybe my brain is just to burnt in with classical mechanics and schools didn't help by showing electrons and atoms as little balls.⚛Maybe the biggest improvement we could make in quantum dynamics is by teaching our children to think in probability and waves instead of balls. Maybe those brains are better wired to finally come up one day with a unifying theory of everything.

[@PasiFourmyle]

I do think it is beneficial to think about particles as waves, and maybe everything is just made of waves formed in different fields interacting with each other, but I have a couple questions about the double slit experiment. 1. How do we know that the double slit experiment was not just showing the inaccuracy of the electron gun itself? 2. If they believed the particles to be "particles", why would they send out electrons straight into a wall with the only way through being a slit on either side?

[@rwarren58]

Interesting. 1. This experiment has been done thousands of times. I find it doubtful that all electron guns show the same inaccuracies and show the same collapse pattern. 2. Better let Arvin handle the why. Try to remember that light is considered to be BOTH a wave and a particle. Hope it helps.

[@PasiFourmyle]

Thanks @@rwarren58, I just feel like a lot is left to assumption whenever this experiment gets presented. Which is kind of frustrating when the findings are this interesting, and then presented as this major shift in scientific belief. I guess that is just part of the allure though, eh? So many fleeting ideas. Questions to be answered, and answers to be questioned.

[@ichigo_nyanko]

1. If the result was due to inaccuracy there would be no interference pattern and it would just be a blob of points around the centre of the screen. Funnily enough this is exactly what happens with one slit, because the electron gun isn't perfectly accurate. In the case of two slits, the interference is 'stronger' than the inaccuracy of the gun, an interference pattern just isn't something an inaccurate machine would make - the only thing we know that causes them are waves.

[@rwarren58]

@@PasiFourmyle What blows my mind (American slang) is that the wave function collapses to a different point each time. How does it know not to hit the space in between patterns? Even with probabilities it should eventually fill the same in-between until a single blob is formed.

[@Elrog3]

The "electron gun" itself is a huge red herring. They don't have any way of firing an electron/photon and only shooting one. They fire a laser continuously and weaken it with filters until it has a power output less than the energy of one electron/photon per the amount of time taken for the laser to travel. And thus they call it "one at a time". The measured result is restricted by the hit atoms having discrete energy levels for their electrons. We can't detect anything smaller than that.

[@evannoynaert]

Thank you. This clarified a great deal for me. I won't claim to "understand" the double slit experiment, but now I think I could explain it to another non-physicist.

[@ArvinAsh]

Glad it was helpful!

[@kenlogsdon7095]

Just wait until you find out about the delayed choice quantum eraser.

[@layton3503]

Right - not right - maybe - no

[@noahway13]

I think that being able to parrot what someone else says does not mean you understand it. Feynman said that there is a world of difference between Knowing and Understanding. This is embarrassing, but I had a bad math teacher, and I knew by heart the multiplication tables, and adding fractions, etc. Then i got a good teacher to show me that 6x6 is actually 6, 6 times. Seems so obvious now. I remember saying to him after it clicked, So 6x7 is 6, 7 times!! I had learned so much by rote memorization and never understood how to apply it. Then I dove into math, finally understanding fractions, decimals, etc, meant something in the real world. So, at that time, I had other students, who thought I was dumb, showing me how to, say, divide fractions, when they did not understand it themselves, just knew how to do the rote process. I'm not putting anyone down, I am just saying, not even the teachers know the real story, so we are all fumbling around, doing the equations by rote, trying to do the best we can. Hopefully soon, we'll have another Einstein type person who can get us all on track. Whew, sorry, didn't mean to ramble.

[@EddyA1337]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/d2rXfKGZdsmffrM and this video are the best explanations I've seen for the double slit experiment

[@robertschlesinger1342]

Excellent video. Very interesting, informative and worthwhile video.

[@craigskiles]

Thanks. This is my favorite of all your videos.

[@djgroopz4952]

Woo! Loved seeing Sabine on here. The more I try to study quantum mechanics there more I get confused. 😂🤣😂 A lot of it seems to fall into the philosophical realm. Different physicists seem to have differing viewpoints on so many things.

[@EddyA1337]

Super determinism makes me uncomfortable though hahaha

[@MaxWindshear]

Lol. That's much like my take. It's like you don't really learn quantum mechanics as much as "come to terms with it."

[@johnreder8167]

me too. love her

[@smlanka4u]

I developed a theory that shows hidden variables and quantum structures. The foundation of quantum mechanics is very simple.

[@DaggerSecurity]

@@smlanka4u share your theory, please

[@foreverraining1522]

My 2 favorite physicists in 1 video, how awesome 👍😎

[@Blake_47]

Arvin it'd be very helpful if you give an insight to single photon interference Thank you

[@ArvinAsh]

It works the same way as that of the electron shown in the video.

[@Blake_47]

@@ArvinAsh And Arvin,Why the Wave function behaves exactly the same as wave interference from classical physics,Does the wavefunction interfere just as the waves do?

[@kenlogsdon7095]

I think of single particle "interference" in experiments such as double slit as merely being due to the wavefunction of the entire apparatus. The probability of the particle landing on any particular spot on the screen is simply the summation of all possible interaction paths that can be allowed and/or contrained by the wavefunction. Here's the thing. In my own interpretation of QM, there is no "collapse" of the wavefunction. The wavefunction is always there. There is only the probability of the interaction of the particle emitter with the particle absorber over one and only one particular path. In other words, in the case of the interactions known as bosons, there is only ever a full spin boson exchanged between two half spin fermions, in the QM Standard Model, with zero distance and zero time in the boson lightlike frame.

[@ArvinAsh]

@@Blake_47 Because the particle is a wave. See the animation in the video where we depict the individual electron as a wave propagating.

[@dragovian]

Hello Arvin! I have asked again in the past, about a modification I have on the quantom eraser scenario, called the "Opposite-Way Experiment". Since our decision of opening/closing the sensors affects the behavior on the screen, what I propose, is to extend the length that the light would need to travel after splitting at the prisms(by a HUGE distance), until it reaches the sensors. Specifically, a feasible solution to this delay, would be to send the light before it hits the sensors, to the moon and back(this has been used for distance/time calculations). This distance, results in about 3 seconds. The main proposition, with the requirement that we can "cover"/"uncover" the sensors, is to start hitting the screen, and in the next 3 seconds: - If we see 2 solid lines, which means we "will" read the result with the sensors, then we will close the sensors. - If we see an interference pattern, which would result in us "closing" the sensors and not reading, then we will leave the sensors open Practically doing the "opposite" of what the screen tells us. What would happen? That could result in having one of the 2 states (solid,interference) as the default behavior for this universe

[@blaugranisto]

One of the best videos about QM! I just subscribed to your channel and I look forward to binge watching your videos

[@oldmangranny5oldmangranny56]

I feel so sorry for the folks back in the day who had to learn this without graphics.

[@schmetterling4477]

Why? The graphics is just icing to deflect from the fact that you wasted 20 minutes of your life without learning anything. ;-)

[@MrDingDong2]

Great video! It's good that Arvin doesn't tell what intepretation he is leaning toward, but instead letting the viewer think for herself/himself.

[@oUncEblUnt420]

that's why he took his thinking cap off, so we can be wearing it in an alternate universe

[@Larry00000]

I keep thinking that there must be some finer grain, "smaller" than standard model particles, that we can't measure. The grain would be related to the particles similar to the way that the kinetic energy of a single water molecule is to the temperature of the water. We know the temperature, but we can only calculate the kinetic energy of the average molecule, not a specific single molecule.

[@Elrog3]

That is exactly my thoughts. And here's a nice bit of information: when they say they fire "one photon at once", what they really mean is they just fire a laser continuously and put a bunch of filters in front of it to weaken it. They make the power output less than the energy of one photon per amount of time taken for the beam to travel and conclude "only one photon is in the beam at the time".

[@nickhowatson4745]

the planck length is the smallest physically possible distance/size. the smallest particles are not much bigger than it.

[@Elrog3]

​@@nickhowatson4745 The science does not say that. The Planck length is the smallest size of space which we could possibly gather information about based on limitations with the current scientific model. It is only about knowledge. It says nothing about existence.

[@Larry000]

@@nickhowatson4745 Planck's constant may be an emergent property of an even more granular world that we cannot measure, but can possibly predict.

[@nickhowatson4745]

@@Elrog3 saying "It is only about knowledge. It says nothing about existence." is an absurd contradiction. knowledge explains existence.

[@ABHISHEKTIWARI-bh8we]

Thanks. Arvin, As always your way of explaining makes our question collapsed one by one just like wave function collapses when try to observe. 😊👍

[@dyludylu]

5:56 Arvin but | psi |^2 for a complex psi is the modulus squared, not psi squared. square of a complex valued function will always be also complex-valued aside Re(psi)=0 or Im(psi)=0 cases

[@stewartminges]

Incredibly concise explanation. You've earned a sub! You should collaborate with Sabine more often :)

[@KaiseruSoze]

I think of QM as a placeholder for the next real understanding in fundamental physics. Kind of an ignorant regression on observations. Curve fitting is a great first step. But to extrapolate beyond the boundaries of the data is a no no. I.e., calling the universe a wave function.

[@theslay66]

But this next "real" understanding can not come from nothing. We make observation, and from these observations we theorize what may happen that can create the observed events. Extrapolating beyond the datas, then testing these new ideas, which leads to new observations,... that's the whole scientific process. The problem with ideas like calling the universe a wave function, or multiple universes, is not that they are extrapolated too far, but that they can't be tested.

[@KaiseruSoze]

@@theslay66 Yes, you're right. But the scientific process isn't an algorithm. It involves people behaving like people. Unpredictably. Some people get us closer to what the universe is and does, some don't. And it takes years to find out who got us closer and who didn't. It's expensive in time and money. I think of science as an heuristic process something like the A* algorithm. Generate, iterate, refine and backtrack until we get there. I.e., do the easy things first (cheap things first).

[@theslay66]

@@KaiseruSoze I agree on that point. Do the easy thing first. However, when the easy thing fails... Simple explanations don't cut it to explain QM, or this video wouldn't exist.

[@nickhowatson4745]

the collapse may just be an artifact of the mathematics of the wave function itself and doesn't physically occur. it just appears to happen because of how we model particles with probabilities.

[@charlesrunthesum5991]

The collapse is just on cycle .....RPM

[@nickhowatson4745]

@@charlesrunthesum5991 im saying that it never happens in the first place. it may be that collapse "appears" due to quantum mechanics being intimately intertwined with probabilities. probabilities are notorious for introducing imaginary number states which do not physically occur or exist.

[@AB-et6nj]

Great and clear explanation. As always. Amazing work, Arvin

[@greensombrero3641]

Outstanding Arvin. Great work.

[@sakshihiremath1035]

Probability is the language of quantum mechanics ❤

[@JT-mz5oc]

"The collapse happens whether we're looking at it or not" How can we possibly know whether the wave function has collapsed without looking and making some kind of measurement/observation?

[@Aguijon1982]

He means that you can record it with a electronic device. He meant that consciousness is not necessary and has nothing to do with it.

[@JT-mz5oc]

@@Aguijon1982 You mean an electronic device designed, manufactured, programmed and operated by a group of conscious agents? Even if electronic devices spontaneously self configured and operated themselves, they still couldn't interpret the results of an experiment (unless they themselves were conscious). So it makes no sense to say the wave function collapses whether we're looking or not, because the only way we can gain information about whether it has collapsed is by looking. It might well collapse without us looking, but it's a fundamentally untestable hypothesis.

[@Aguijon1982]

@@JT-mz5oc Sorry but a camera is not a conscious being. If you want to argue that a camera is somehow a conscious being then you should see a doctor.

[@JT-mz5oc]

@@Aguijon1982 You have misunderstood the point. I'm not claiming cameras are conscious, I'm saying that without consciousness observation no information has been gained about whether the wave function has collapsed or not. The camera can record data, but until the data is interpreted by a conscious observer it's impossible to say whether the wave function has collapsed. Just as in the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment, it's impossible to say whether the cat is alive or dead until the box is opened and the status of the cat is observed.

[@Aguijon1982]

@@JT-mz5oc You are missing all the points. Because the argument he was replying to was that somehow a conscious observer Influences the results, and it doesn't. Sorry

[@hansvanzutphen5317]

Great video, and great to see @Sabina Hossenfelder here as well! Hidden variables seem to be a bit problematic to me, since in the case of the double slit experiment, either the electron needs to have some hidden properties in advance that determine how it appears to go through both slits (and any future slits it may go through before it's being detected), or the slits need to have those properties determining how any type of particle moves through them. An electron can potentially move through billions of slit-like situations before it's every detected - hidden variables would mean that the information for all those billions of situations are stored in the electron (or in all those places where something happens). Am I missing something here? Many worlds to me seems very counter-intuitive. And it doesn't really solve any problem. Instead of wondering why a waveform collapsed in a spefcific way, we now need to figure out why we ended up in a specific parallel universe where the waveform collaped in that specific way. So we still have a collapse to explain, but now we add generating extra universes to it. If you think of it as a simulation, like a computer program, I would almost compare it to "lazy evaluation" - once you need to know something you determine it, and no sooner, because that would just take a lot more effort and doesn't give any noticeable difference in the end result. It seems to be the simples solution to get the behavior that we see.

[@drbeanut]

With hidden variables, a particle could just have a single hidden variable, which changes over time with its interactions. Local hidden variables are theoretically problematic, however if we remove causal restrictions, hidden variables can make a lot of sense. My belief is that particles communicate retro-causally (send information to their past self). This is one way to explain how entangled particles correlate state.

[@DFPercush]

@@drbeanut Hidden variables are disproven for entanglement specifically - search Bell's Theorem. I'm sure Dr. Sabine knows that, but I guess she's talking about other situations. Many worlds, some would argue, is actually simpler, because you don't even consider things collapsing. It takes the measurement completely out of the picture. The wave function, is the wave function, is the wavefunction, now and forevermore, and it continues to propagate according to Shrodinger's equation indefinitely. How useful that is, kinda depends on what you're doing I guess. PBS Space Time recently did an episode asking "does the universe create itself" or some similar title, where they consider that the only reason any physical laws exist, are because something needs to know the answer, and the universe we have is simply a result of what must be true to answer those questions and remain self consistent. A real mind trip, that one.

[@Mujahed0001]

Fantastic video! Always learning something new from this channel The simplicity in the explanation is just irresistible

[@Bassotronics]

It’s seems as if the particles are non-physical and physical at the same time. As I know ‘Charge’ is what keeps atoms apart. So what if when a particle moves through space time, it’s constantly shifting phases causing it to behave that way? As if Spacetime itself was like a virtual alternator. But in the end, what exactly IS charge?

[@ichigo_nyanko]

It's a fundamental quantum property (sort of). Just like mass, spin, etc. It comes about due to symmetry groups in the standard model. I would recommend the videos "What If Charge is NOT Fundamental?" and "Electroweak Theory and the Origin of the Fundamental Forces" by PBS spacetime to learn about what charge is.

[@branrx]

Quantum mechanics confirms Socrates statement that a wise man knows that he doesn’t know anything

[@shadowoffire4307]

Arivn what is your own idea of fundamental reality? Pleas tell us.

[@ArvinAsh]

It was in the video. An objective reality exists. Quantum mechanics describes this reality. We can't see it working the way the theory describes because we are also quantum objects participating within that reality.

[@mikkel715]

@@ArvinAsh Seems you joined with Bohr👍

[@michaelfried3123]

@Spanda Vibration meat popsicles acting like philosophy is actually science...yes.

[@YayComity]

​@@ArvinAsh I wonder if that means you agree with Sabine about superdeterminism? "We can't see it working the way the theory describes because we are also quantum objects participating within that reality." seems to me is equivalent to saying that we cannot assume we or our effects are "statistically independent" of any experiment, which I interpret as the description of superdeterminism (or is it just a condition of superdeterminism?). The confirmed violation of Bell's Inequality is reported to imply that either objective reality is correct or locality is correct, but not both. It's said by Bell and others that the only way to preserve both is superdeterminism. By believing in objective reality, I wonder if it is fair to conclude you are either flexible about locality or you lean towards superdeterminism? Locality is preserved if the speed of light is truly the speed of causation and is absolute. And the only phenomenon ever considered (to my knowledge) to possibly break locality is quantum (e.g. entanglement), more broadly the collapse of the wave function truly simultaneously all along its infinite reach. Thus experiments that have proven Bell's inequality at distances beyond reach of the speed of light would seem to be proof of either non-locality OR proof of superdeterminism, the latter maybe being dismissed solely because it demotes humans to being "quantum objects participating within that reality.", and more so the emotionally-triggering confrontation with the idea of "free will". I really ask in order to test my understanding of those concepts, not to put you on the spot. I have posed an equivalent question to Sabine and others and not surprisingly received no answer. Perhaps it is a dumb question or just another expression of ignorance in a sea of amateur misconceptions. I've posed it as: "If one accepts both the existence of an objective reality and that the speed of light is truly just the speed of causality and is therefore inviolable, AND that humans are made of the same stuff as the rest of the universe, then wouldn't it be fair to conclude that the confirmed experimental violation of Bell's inequality is evidence of superdeterminism? And thus is it possible we invented ideas of "no objective reality, like Copenhagen", and/or nonlocality to avoid the "copernican" consequences of superdeterminism?"

[@Rationalific]

You give the most understandable explanations of Quantum Theory that I've ever heard. Thanks so much for these videos!

[@MrMegarag]

Just found in this video the new best double slit experiment explanation of all others I've seen. Thanks again.

[@ebindanjan]

Thanks again for this excellent video. Learned a lot from it.

[@RickClark58]

You know, the more I hear about quantumm mechanics, the more it sounds like a method to conserve computing resources. If the player characters are not looking at something, then you don't need to render the object. Very convenient. :)

[@mikkel715]

If only a small particle is looking, you just entangle them, and wait evaluate. But then of course both need evaluation when looked at.

[@peterader3073]

It’s so bizarre how people in programming and engineering in general are so terribly simple minded and simultaneously arrogant that they assume that the structure of the cosmos must correspond to what they happen to have expertise in...

[@uninspired3583]

Disagree. Arvin specifically calls out in this video that the collapse happens whether we look at it or not. I would say that tracking billions and billions of individual pieces to describe one surface is not a good way to optimize processing.

[@Takyodor2]

@@peterader3073 How rude. We (software developer personally, but I'm sure engineers are similar) just like to find patterns and similarities in other fields. It often gives insight to think "how could I write a program that does this". I think OP did that out of curiosity, not arrogance. I've actually thought similar thoughts about saving CPU through lazy evaluation, and was amused I'm not alone. Don't just go around comment sections insulting people you prick!

[@mikkel715]

@@peterader3073 😆

[@seanyiu]

That’s the first time I’ve heard how the double slit explained to confirm rather than depicted as a mystery. It’s layman-nish in explanation so most of us can grasp it but it’s very deep at the same time.

[@lozD83]

My understanding from every other source I've heard was that we don't see the interference pattern when we observe/measure, it only appears if we don't observe. That's not what was explained here though 🤔

[@teqerstudios8109]

First to View!

[@muthukumaranl]

The content in this channel is mind blowing!

[@samatha1994]

brilliant explainations in all your videos. Thank you!

[@mastershooter64]

quantum mechanics is what a very tiny mecahinc studies

[@ElizGen]

Your videos are unparalleled! they are a pure delight for those who want to better understand quantum physics! In the double slit experiment, at 10' and after of this video: why is there no collapse of the wave function on the first obstacle, on the support in between the two slits ?

[@schmetterling4477]

Because there is never a collapse of the wave function. There are only people who didn't pay attention in high school science class where we teach correctly what quanta are.

[@ElizGen]

@@schmetterling4477 I am even more confused now

[@schmetterling4477]

@@ElizGen A quantum is an amount of energy. What people call "collapse of the wave function" is simply "the observer" removing or adding a small amount of energy from/to the quantum system. It's just a bullshit name for what all of you know as "inelastic collision" in classical mechanics. Or, of you want the classical example with dice: why do dice stop on the table? Because of friction. Duh! What in the world is so miraculous about that? Moving dice don't have a well defined state from 1-6. Only resting dice without any kinetic energy can be assigned such a simple state.

[@avadhutd1403]

Thanks for amazing video Do you think that creating practice collider that look at plank length is only option to resolve quantum gravity mystery? Keep making such videos such video

[@ArvinAsh]

I don't think it's practical to create even larger colliders on earth. Maybe in the future we will create linear colliders in space. They would be much more efficient, imo.

[@lisac.9393]

Good explanation, thank you! Yay, Sabine!

[@tormodi5925]

Another superb video from Arvin Ash!!

[@horrido666]

Best science content I've seen this year. Great work.

[@goncaloagp]

Wonderful as usual. Thank you.

[@existncdotcom5277]

Excellent description of something I long have been trying to come to grips with

[@ArvinAsh]

Glad it was helpful!

[@ZubairKhan-vs8fe]

As usual, your videos are very high quality and informative.

[@nvrp]

Thank you Arvin!

[@AnthonyBouttell]

Great video Arvin!. One thing you could have added was that if add a detector at each slit, no wave pattern will be seen on the phosphor screen. All you see will be lines, and no interference pattern. That would have really brought home the fact that measuring the wave, collapses the wave.

[@schmetterling4477]

Well, actually, it only brings out the fact that you didn't pay attention in K-12. ;-)

[@marcjordan6923]

I love this video because it proves we still have so far to go and so much to learn

[@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546]

Wow! Sabine & Arvin in one video. With Arvin's compliments to Jim Al-Khalili. I've learned so much these three mentors. And silly OL' me , I was hoping that one day CIG Mechanics could explain reality. Thank you so much to all involved in the making of this video!

[@Sharperthanu1]

Since you agree with Jim Al-Khalili''s viewpoint you should remember that he has a video online called:"Atom:The Illusion of Reality." This viewpoint is also verified by Einstein when he says "Reality is an illusion albeit a persistent one." So here we are in the Twilight Zone creating all this but only when we look.Sorry Arvin but that's the exact word you used on this video:"Look."

[@kmorris5838]

Brilliant video! Is there a theory that the electron moves as a single point in space but through space/time and the wave function is caused by the electron warping space/time?

[@nicolaberti7698]

Hi Arvin! Huge fan here! I was wondering if you could make a video in the future about what is the Schumann resonance, it's association with planet earth and possible effects on our brain as humans

[@ArvinAsh]

Hmm...I don't know anything about it. Will take a look.

[@nicolaberti7698]

@@ArvinAsh Awesome! Thank you for your response. I recently came across the topic and it caught my attention. It's being described as the "heart pulse of planet Earth" and it might have influences on the human brain when the resonnance shifts too abruptly

[@Music_Creativity_Science]

Hi Arwin, would it be possible for you to make a calculation example video with Schrodingers equation, understandable for physics enthusiasts with no such university education ? If so, I suppose the hydrogen atom would be the object to use ?

[@ArvinAsh]

I did something like that in this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qqLCqmSnhNKIeKc - I showed how solving the Schrodinger equation shows the structure of atoms.

[@paxwebb]

Another great video, Arvin! Thanks so much for blowing our minds yet again :p

[@TheHarmonicOscillator]

Nice introduction to QM. For more depth in a popular level book, I recommend Caltech Physics professor Sean Carroll’s “Something Deeply Hidden.” Carroll is an Everettian, and after reading his book I have to agree that Many Worlds is the best theory. The idea of “worlds splitting” is not so mysterious as it first sounds when Carroll explains it. Like Arvin Ash, he is a marvelous communicator.

[@Chris-hy6tj]

great, thanks! My personal thinking is that we need to understand the measurement process first before quantum mechanics and the true nature of reality unfolds. what is a measurement fundamentally, how and when does it happen, and how is conciousness involved. and finally, what is conciousness? all these questions are closely connected.

[@brokenrulerlabs]

Thanks, Sabine. He is a good teacher.

[@donatsu8]

Great video. Not sure if this is a sensible question: Why does the act of measuring lead to a collapse of the wave function? Or, how does electron 'know' that it's properties are being measured?

[@ArvinAsh]

Electrons and any other particle does not "know" anything. The interaction or energy exchange causes a change.

[@michaelvanburen6010]

Great video! Arvin never dissapoints

[@aveersingh7634]

Hey Arvin! Your explanations are vrilliant! I have a question in the nature of reality Why does reality have to manifest itself into the existence of nothingness (the universe being empty) or physical and elegant And why does there even exist reality?Why not there be no reality, and thus an emptier state than of nothingness;of non existence of even emptiness of matter in a quiet volume? Like: If a room is the volume of the universe, a person inside will manifest physical and elegant reality, when a person exits, still reality manifests as emptiness of the room. But then why not that there existed not such a room for reality to manifest itself? Why does that room of volume of the universe have to exist for reality to manifest itself? What forces reality to manifest itself? What makes up reality and what would exist if there were not even emptiness in the volume of the universe?

[@ArvinAsh]

Good question. it's more philosophical than scientific though. I tried to answer that question in this video; kzbin.info/www/bejne/rJ6mcpl5f7SJmKs

[@Naturamorpho]

Usually, I hear say that in Many Worlds interpretation every time a "measurement" (many things count as a measurement, right?) is made, new worlds are created for each and every possible result. But, couldn't we interpret it in reverse? As in "At every measurement, many worlds are destroyed, except the ones with the measured outcome in it"?

[@ArvinAsh]

That would be along the lines of standard Copenhagen interpretation, that all possibilities exist prior to measurement. Multiple 'worlds" don't exist though.

[@Naturamorpho]

@@ArvinAsh Could we, then, for the sake of reckless oversimplification, say that Copenhagen sees streamlining where Many Worlds sees branching, and we can't yet tell if any is right. Right?😄

[@michaelfried3123]

more philosophical garbage masquerading as science...

[@davidedrich6985]

This was clearly the best explanation of the double slit experiment that I’ve seen and I’ve seen a lot. I feel I do try quantum mechanics now (which of course means I don’t get quantum mechanics!) The double slit experiment and the sending light through 3 polarizers is essentially the same. It be nice to have a video where one compares and contrasts these 2 very interesting experiments and maybe others that show the collapsing and how it follows the rules of probabilities. I mean showing 5 or 10 such experiments that feel very different and show the exact same principle - that the universe must make a probabilistic choice to maintain a quanta - would be very instructive.

[@schmetterling4477]

And, yet, you didn't notice that it was total bullshit. ;-)

[@daylesuess552]

@@schmetterling4477 what part is bull to you? Explain

[@schmetterling4477]

@@daylesuess552 The part where the double slit experiment is completely classical. There is not the faintest whiff of Planck's constant surrounding it. ;-)

[@david.thomas.108]

Excellent subject matter clearly explained, thanks!