What is The Quantum Wave Function, Exactly?

Sign up to Brilliant with this link to receive a 20% discount! brilliant.org/upandatom
In this video we talk about the mysterious wave function of quantum mechanics.
Quantum Physics Playlist
• What is The Schrödinge...
My Quantum Physics Essay From Uni
drive.google.com/file/d/1w2gI...
Table of different interpretations of quantum mechanics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpr...
Hi! I'm Jade. Subscribe to Up and Atom for physics, math and computer science videos!
SUBSCRIBE TO UP AND ATOM
/ upandatom
Visit the Up and Atom Store
store.nebula.app/collections/...
If you'd like to consider supporting Up and Atom, head over to my Patreon page :)
/ upandatom
Follow me @upndatom
Up and Atom on Twitter: upndatom?lang=en
Up and Atom on Instagram: / upndatom
A big thank you to my AMAZING PATRONS!
Purple Penguin, Félix, Damien J, Gadi Shalom, Chris Flynn, Ofer Mustigman, Alan McNea, Mikely Whiplash, Sachin Shenoy, Yana Chernobilsky, Lynn Shackelford, Richard Farrer, Adam Thornton, Dag-Erling Smørgrav, Andrew Pann, Anne Tan, Joe Court, Brandon Combs, Damien Holloway, Ayan Doss, Marcus Dentrey, John Lakeman, Jana Christine Saout, Michael Dean, Chris Amaris, Daniel McGown, Matt G, Timur Kiyui, Broos Nemanic, John Satchell, John Shioli, Todd Loreman, Susan Jones, Sam Ross, Julian Engel, Shawn, Israel Shirk, Kay, Peter Walsh, Osa and Beth Fitch, Andrew Stott, Heather Richards, Garrett Chomka, Raffael Hirt, Jeff Schwarz, Josh B, Zach Tinawi, Bernard Wei, Bobby Butler, Matt Harden, Rebecca Lashua, Pat Gunn, George Fletcher, Jasper Capel, Luc Ritchie, Elze Kool, Aditya Anantharaman, Frédéric Junod, Vincent Seguin, Paul Bryan, Michael Brunolli, Ken Takahashi, Schawn Schoch, Jesse Clark, Steven Wheeler, Atila Pires dos Santos, Roger Johnson, Philip Freeman, Bogdan Morosanu, KhAnubis, Jareth Arnold, Simon Barker, Shawn Patrick James Kirby, Simon Tobar, Dennis Haupt, Renato Pereira, Simon Dargaville, and Magesh.
For a one time donation, head over to my PayPal :) www.paypal.me/upandatomshows
Animations
Tom Groenestyn
Music
Epidemic Sound

[@primozuado]

Observer: hey Wave function: aight imma collapse out

[@HeilmwaterStudios]

Wave is an introvert CONFIRMED!! where is my Nobel prize

[@axolotl8316]

I heard somewhere you seeing doesn’t change anything, because you are the part of the universal wave function

[@lebeccthecomputer6158]

@@HeilmwaterStudios or an extreme extravert. According to the many worlds interpretation, instead of collapsing it goes “JOIN ME”

[@anujarora0]

Bold of you to assume that I understand plain English

[@KhushiSharma-ci2kf]

Anuj Arora Bold of you to assume that I understand

[@Ezrik2006]

Bold of you her to assume i took trigonometry in high school.

[@curiousuniverse7415]

Read Harry Potter

[@carlosrivera2364]

You're right. I'm not even from England.

[@adr1620]

Bold of you to think I'm in high school( or higher)

[@Corporis]

“Never 100% not confused” would be amazing on a sticker

[@AlexandMaggie07]

Totally agree! Put that on a shirt Jade!

[@Microbex]

Do it, you will never regret it.

[@mihailmilev9909]

@@Microbex did u do it?

[@95rav]

To paraphrase Douglas Adams: There's a theory that if we understood QM, it would collapse to something even more weird. These's also a theory this may have already happened...

[@jorgepeterbarton]

Answers give more questions than questions give answers. We just need to find what the question is, we can cqlculate shrodingers equation but the answer being 42 is not an understanding.

[@marveloussoftware4914]

Actually, when you really understand something it becomes less weird. One example is when people believed in the geocentric model and used epicycles. When the finally moved to the heliocentric model it became "less weird"

[@solconcordia4315]

@marveloussoftware4914 Fourier Analysis underlying Physics still uses epicycles galore ! Geocentrism still reigns. 😂

[@michaelcoleman4169]

A favored quote which I first heard from my mother and may have its origins in a mathematical textbook states "We have not succeeded in answering all our problems. The answers we have found only serve to raise a whole set of new questions. In some ways we feel we are as confused as ever, but we believe we are confused on a higher level and about more important things". I think I'm confused on a higher level about Wave Functions now, thanks for the video. Merry Christmas, Happy New Decade.

[@MysticKenji2]

I can say as a PhD student that your quote is a pretty accurate representation of grad school

[@upandatom]

you have a cool mum

[@bobleclair5665]

Michael Coleman I came in confused

[@ronburk5135]

"we must face the problems that we are facing as we have always faced the problems we have faced," Senator Ted Kennedy

[@nimehg5734]

@@MysticKenji2 I don't think that's a grad school problem.

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

My favorite Schrodinger fact: Einstein suggested Schrodinger's cat in a letter to him. Schrodinger later repeated it in a letter to Einstein. Einstein had forgotten that it was his idea and gave Schrodinger the credit. Also, it was intended as a way to make fun of silly ideas about the interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is not supposed to be a suggestion of how the world actually works.

[@DJVARAO]

Great point. Indeed, Schrodinger was haunted by that poor imaginary experiment.

[@metatron5199]

Sam yeah that is a great story about the two, and your dead right about the point behind that thought experiment, they were trying to show how absurd some of the interpretations to results of various experiments (double slit being one) were turning out to be since they clearly violated philosophical realism, and up and till this point it had been essentially unanimous between all physicist that the project of physics was in part founded on the concept of realism, and for obvious good reason, and honestly should stay that way, as science in of itself no longer makes sense if one tries to deviate from realism, even just a slight detour ends you up with inconceivably inconsistent theories that make absolute no sense. Cheers

[@AgentOccam]

- "...it was intended as a way to make fun of silly ideas about the interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is not supposed to be a suggestion of how the world actually works". I've heard this many times, but it doesn't address the question: so what *IS* the correct interpretation of how the world actually works? As far as I'm aware, Einstein and Schrodinger could never clarify that themselves. Hence, it went from "a way to make fun of silly ideas about the interpretation of quantum mechanics", to a case of 'Well okay, you do better then'.

[@DJVARAO]

@@AgentOccam The answer is : you don't need an interpretation in order to get a working knowledge of quantum mechanics. Just the media get obsessed with it.

[@renedekker9806]

@@AgentOccam Science still does not have an answer to that question. We all know that making an observation will collapse the wave function and give a definite location to the particle. What science does not know what "making an observation" really is. What action constitutes an "observation" and what doesn't? It is clear that Schrödingers cat cannot be both alive and dead at the same time, because that would not fit with real world experiments. Therefore, the triggering of the mechanism that kills the cat must be counted as "an observation". But why? There is no real answer to that in any of the quantum mechanics interpretations.

[@hansisbrucker813]

Schrödinger was living the life 🤣

[@scienceexplains302]

Hans Isbrücker He was and he wasn’t

[@MultiGoban]

@@scienceexplains302 lmao stop

[@lyrimetacurl0]

Reminds me of the quote: "Women - you can't live with them, you can't live without them"

[@benhetland576]

@@lyrimetacurl0 yes, probably like his cat.. he must have been using a wife function for the estimation of the probability of finding one of his "wifes" at any particular spot, but he could know for sure only after checking. Then he figured he could just apply the same "intuitive" rule in physics, so the wife function became the wave function :-)

[@atomicman2307]

Pussy makes genius.. of course

[@twotothehalf3725]

10:50 "Schrödinger must have just had an incredible intuition, and... uh... _inspiration."_ God dammit, Jade, I was wondering where you're going with the polygamy thing.

[@atiqit7318]

😂

[@noahway13]

Jade is my ... Um, inspiration.

[@kunalpanchal6659]

🤣🤣

[@shivamgakkhar9537]

my most favourate line from Quantum mechanics is=== "every time I see you I collapse your wave function"

[@charlesdrury1587]

Sadly I'm 73 years old my wave does not have a function anymore

[@shivamgakkhar9537]

@@charlesdrury1587 Ha ha ha... you nailed it.....

[@kajal55772]

Your videos on Quantum mechanics are THE BEST. PERIOD!! No one in my entire life has explained this concept to me the way you did. You are really very talented. I wish you were my teacher🥺❤️

[@ehsanshahini6146]

How to become a physicist: 1. Go to your villa at the mountain with 4 hot chicks 2. None of them should be your wife 3. Stay there for two months 4. Come up with the first equation that comes to your mind and put it in 4 articles 5. Repeat step #1 - 4

[@joshuarosen6242]

It's a tough job, but someone's got to do it.

[@jaikumar848]

Who actually did this ??

[@ehsanshahini6146]

@@jaikumar848 Schrodinger

[@joshuarosen6242]

@@jaikumar848 Erwin Schrödinger. Didn't you watch the video?

[@danielu.4957]

Sounds like Shrod made that up. Where do you get four women interested in a theoretical physicist

[@AlexandMaggie07]

Jade you're so brilliant! I hope one day to see you hosting a TV show on Discovery or Science channel. I would definitely watch that all the way through.

[@upandatom]

aww thanks William!

[@mihailmilev9909]

@@upandatom me too! Although those aren't most of the time as interesting as your channel I would say

[@mihailmilev9909]

What do you think?

[@SpotterVideo]

@@upandatom Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons. Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.

[@ChrisVallejos]

And maybe discovery or science channel hopes to one day be on Up and atom!

[@element118_5]

2=4 **triggered by equal sign abuse**

[@ExcludedLayman]

I've seen 'one way' equality operator usage in a few places, including an MIT lecture about asymptotic analysis. Clearly set theorists need to work harder on outreach.

[@kayvee256]

::rocks back and forth in fetal position::

[@alexandertownsend3291]

They are equal modulo 2.

[@pasijutaulietuviuesas9174]

@@alexandertownsend3291 "2=4" is incorrect. "2 mod 2 = 4 mod 2" is correct.

[@kahaanparikh1013]

Well communism triggers everybody

[@equesdeventusoccasus]

Is it possible that Shrödinger took the work of one of his "research" assistants? My Calculus teacher used to believe that if you couldn't explain how you arrived at an answer, that you probably copied off of your neighbor. Excellent video as always.

[@MsSonali1980]

Sounds totally legit for a guy that would put a cat in a box together with a lethal substance and has four "research assistants" besides his wife.

[@astraBinary]

Shrödinger know how arrived at the equation (not function), and he created!

[@sauravbhandari3273]

@@MsSonali1980 that's a thought experiment, he didn't do it in actual but in his minds

[@MsSonali1980]

@@sauravbhandari3273 Thanks for manplaining the obvious to me.

[@sauravbhandari3273]

@@MsSonali1980 Ohh Sarcasm huh

[@nityanandapadhi7480]

I just love the way you explain the concepts! Even watching PBS space time channel, I sometimes don't understand things, but you make it really easy!! Thanks for the explanation once again!

[@upandatom]

you're welcome!

[@mheermance]

Given Schrödinger's extra-curricular interests, you have to wonder how he found the time to work on the wave equation.

[@vexhenry]

Maybe They did. "Babe, I'm kind of turned off by your notion of classically continuous fields. Do something about that."

[@thewaytruthandlife]

simple he made a lot of wavy movements himself.....going up and down.....he was and expert in waving; having several kids with other woman....

[@vexhenry]

@@thewaytruthandlife I always figured his waves were in the state of premature emission.

[@thewaytruthandlife]

extra curriculum ?... extra kids you mean....with extra woman....

[@bobleclair5665]

A waterbed comes to mind,

[@ro3843]

She's like a kindergarten teacher for really really smart children

[@DaveGilbertPhD]

You're such a great teacher! Thank you for these whimsical, insightful illustrations and explanations!

[@monxampion6930]

i have looked at 10+ videos and FINALLY!! thank you for the explanation. it really does feel good understanding (to a certain degree) difficult concepts like this. i will recommend your videos to all my classmates!

[@sohotcall]

Hi, Jade. For y=x² function (1:16), don't write it 1=1, 2=4, 3=9... You can write it 1->1, 2->4, 3->9 with arrow.

[@MasterHigure]

I second this. Putting = between two values does NOT mean "one computes into the other", it means "one is exactly the same as the other". Years of writing things like 1+1=2 gives people the impression that = signifies in some way a computation and a result, but that's not it at all.

[@Xeridanus]

@@MasterHigure Tell that to programmers. :P

[@jesusmauryvargas8971]

no u

[@rksnj6797]

Thank you for your videos!!! When I was young, I loved math, physics, etc. Being old (don't ask LOL!), it's great to see things discussed that I may not have thought about in a very long time!!! Keep making your videos and I'll keep watching!

[@upandatom]

thanks Richard!

[@bobleclair5665]

If you can explain it so a 68 year old retired carpenter can understand it,,I think you’re doing a great job,thank you,,,it seems for quantum theory,math has come to a wall,,,is physics leaving reality,,,all these probabilities and parallel universes,,,,it seems to me,you’re trying to predict the future?? AI is not enough,,you need our imaginations and intuition,,peace,

[@yashpreetgoyal3286]

Really cool topic jade. Love it

[@upandatom]

thank you!

[@scoreprinceton]

@@upandatom If Schrodinger did the experiment in a transparent glass box, would he need an equation to predict if the cat was dead or alive? Both Einstein and Schrodinger could have saved all their troubles and known with certainty the answer to the question, if the cat was alive or not at any given time/space, thus absolving the need for a wave function, weather it was derived with a proof or not. In other words, quantum mechanics might not be needed to understand the realty because everything is a certainty. Quantum mechanics is needed only to understand unreality - that which might have been but has not been.

[@wulphstein]

The simplest explanation is that a wave function is describing a virtual photon (s), which has position, momentum and spin states already. The charges weave virtual photons into a system of wave functions with position and momentum states. The particles occupy the position and momentum states at random. When the particle is detected, the wave function disintegrates back into virtual photons.

[@cynthiahanna]

This is the most clear, concise, and understandable explanation that I've heard yet. Thank you!

[@ollpu]

2:45 I believe probability amplitude refers to the value before squaring. What you get when squaring is just a conventional probability density.

[@GingerWithEnvy]

Which is why you need to care about normalisation, just so we can be conventional about adding probabilities up to 1

[@The_Call_Up]

This is one of the most coherent explanations of Quantum Wave function I've heard. Thanks for making this!

[@upandatom]

thank you for watching and commenting!

[@bobleclair5665]

I still have a problem switching over from linear thinking

[@esperancaemisterio]

Wow!!!! Two videos from my favorite youtuber in a short amount of time! It's like a wonderful Christmas gift! As always, your explanation is the best! Fantastic video Jade! Thanks a lot! =)

[@upandatom]

Thanks Joao!

[@Govstuff137]

Awesome videos. Im a 71 year old budding physics. Not having a lot of time left to learn. So you are awesome to me .

[@nathanaelhahn4795]

Totally not pertinent to my exam in thirty minutes. It's perfect.

[@reshpeck]

How did your exam go? Sometimes it's really helpful to exercise your mind with an unrelated topic before a test. I find it is more helpful than just cramming up to the last minute.

[@nathanaelhahn4795]

@@reshpeck 👌🏻 was a breeze. I agree, resting your mind is sometimes just as good a way to study than cramming.

[@IceMetalPunk]

What I learned from this is that if I sleep with a bunch of women in a secluded cabin, I can be a genius :D

[@paulklee5790]

If you can persuade four exceptional young ladies to go to a secluded villa with you, you are already a genius.....

[@bobleclair5665]

a broke genius

[@kjamison5951]

Thank you, Jade. Best wishes for the New Year and more of your excellent videos!

[@TheFoolOnTheHil1]

Your videos seems so well produced. Thank you for the great content

[@doubleirishdutchsandwich4740]

You are such an amazing presenter. My girlfriend is finishing up her PhD in biology this year and because of people like you, I am trying to convince her to create content like yourself as I majored in computing and could handle the video work. We did the double split experiment using a $5 laser and a piece of cardboard that we cut up using a household razor. Thank you for making it so intuitive. Not everyone can major in your field, but we are all super interested in the nature of reality :)

[@upandatom]

good luck to you and your gf! KZbin is lots of fun :)

[@MasterHigure]

4:24 We don't really know that. There are interpretations of quantum mechanics (specifically the pilot wave theory) where the electron truly IS a particle at some particular location, and it, for lack of a better word, "surfs" on the wave function. Also, as far as what is truly real goes, basically no concept we work with in physics is "real". Forces, for instance, are just mathematical quantities when you see the world through a Newtonian perspective, but there are plenty of ways to view the physical world in ways where forces just do not exist. For instance, in quantum mechanics, using the Schrödinger equation, the main quantity that tells the wave function how it should behave is energy (at least when observed in an inertial frame). Not a force in sight. That said, in many scenarios, using forces to predict what will happen is extremely useful, and you do get the correct answer in the end. So forces aren't real, but that doesn't matter, because they work.

[@metatron5199]

MasterHigure what do you mean forces aren't real? Bc if your saying they are simply abstractions experiments would seem to imply otherwise,, please be clear as far as what ontological status you grant them and what's your epistemological lens you are viewing this all through? Thanks, cheers

[@metatron5199]

Vendicar Kahn we actually really don't know what an electron is, according to what we observe across a multitude of experiments would indicate that there most certainly is and electron, it is just not one solid object like a billiard ball but much more closely resembles a flock of birds or if you need me to be more literal like a little cloud i.e. What we thought was single Bullard ball like thing was in fact a singular cloud like thing, this object is spread out across space like a self interacting plasma , this is honestly the best picture we are able to draw from the observation made given to date (at least as far as publicly available information is concerned, bc who knows what has been learned and than been classified bc of its implications etc... cheers

[@MasterHigure]

@@metatron5199 There are several physical theories that 1) agree with experiment, and 2) don't have forces in them, at all, in any way, shape or form. And these theories aren't just some obscure theories whose sole purpose is to show that it can be done. They are the backbone of theoretical physics as we know it today. It could be that forces exist. But if we can describe all we see in this world, through experiments and experience, without using forces, this is evidence (maybe not proof, but at least evidence) that they are just a mathematical tool to help us describe the world around us, rather than being an actual part of the world around us. So that's what I'm going to believe until stronger evidence says otherwise.

[@GeldarionTFS]

They only work if they times distance

[@metatron5199]

Vendicar Kahn wow sounds like you have never studied physics with responses like that or if you did certainly not about what is being discussed, nor does it seem like you even read my entire comment, as I literally stated the more apt analogy here is a cloud (as far as what the best instruments can show us depending on what experiments we are conducting) that fact you are unaware of this simple fact speaks very Volumes about how much you know/understand about QM also fun fact there are no issues with pilot wave to date and any reported evidence to supposedly show it to be incorrect have all ended up being wrong themselves, the most interesting thing was the team I believe at MIT who recently measured the time it take for a "quantum jump" to take place, and as per usual, turns out the process is continuous only giving more credence to the pilot wave interpretation. Forces are quite real and what has been presented are literally not even arguments as to why, either show the philosophical positions you are champion bc physics can not answer these question of how we interpret QM, all we know is the Copenhagen interpretation is not satisfactory at all, that is unless you believe in complimentarity, but no one with any philosophical study will accept that trash.agian be specific what is the ontological status and what is your limit cases due to epistemology in the theory those are literally the only two questions needed answered anything outside of that I will not bother reading as you will have just proven you do not know what your actually talking about as that should be the only concern when answering this question....

[@ericchin739]

You're absolutely incredible!! I'm subscribing for sure!! Awesome content!!!

[@spicytrashpanda]

Have a wonderful holiday and we can't wait to hear from you again. Really good work as always.

[@n1k32h]

Yes I wonder what it smells like

[@GopinathJanakiramanGOPI]

Your last video regarding spectral line and this one, i believe, are really the way to teach rather than just throwing bunch of math, love it

[@upandatom]

glad you enjoyed them!

[@jerry3790]

What’s up with all the interpretations? I’d like a video investigating a bunch and explaining why Copenhagen is the most popular one. Also, why does the wave function have negative values in the first place? The “square it just because” answer may be intuitive but isn’t very satisfying

[@tapferetomate914]

There's actually more to it. The wavefunction does not only represent the probability for the location. It can be used to get the probability of any physical quantity you can think of. Though there is no explanation at the end it turns out that the probability of measuring any observable is deduced by similar manipulations of the wave function. In the case of position it happens to be just the wave function squared. Where in General the result is much more complicated.

[@DJVARAO]

The Copenhagen interpretation was the accepted one by the prestigious attendees of the Solvay conference of 1927. Einstein notably opposed such an interpretation by presenting thought experiments that disproved the Copenhagen Interpretation. He worked to formulate a better theory including classical causality. I believe the answer was developed by Bohm with his pilot wave theory, now more popular than ever because it predicts things.

[@vexhenry]

Consider how the electric field can take on negative values. This means a reversal of direction. This is also a phase shift. We square it because that's how to calculate how energy flows.

[@DJVARAO]

Regarding your second question, the wave function is not negative, but a complex defined mathematical object. Complex numbers are more convenient for handling functions that are virtually impossible to solve with real numbers alone. There is no "square things" rule. It has to be with the norm used with complex variable functions: its "magnitude" is the function times its complex conjugate one, which ultimately is the square of the magnitude. Is math, not philosophy the reason behind it.

[@erfanmeydani4350]

AWSOME. Many questions were answered. Hope to continue being this much good.

[@LeoTaxilFrance]

As you try to understand youself, you go through some false assumptions, but at the end you finally get it. And now you explain to others your experience. For me it is very useful, and many thanks to you. And the presentation is very clever and shows that you are creative.

[@MikeTaffet]

Just FYI: Audio is out of sync

[@HoD999x]

yes, i noticed something was strange...

[@SteinGauslaaStrindhaug]

Oh good! I was wondering if either my Chromecast was misbehaving, or if I had a migraine aura coming on...

[@8BitThoughts]

I'm only reading the comments to make sure it wasnt just me

[@Snidebark]

Maybe it’s relative and it’s the video that’s out of sync. Discuss.

[@anteater9408]

@@Snidebark preach!

[@PlayTheMind]

Quantum Wave Function: When particles go 👋 Great video, as always!

[@upandatom]

Thanks Alex!

[@jimseagoe1669]

"In plain English" This is the great appeal of this channel & why I keep coming back. Thank you for this!

[@riddheshpatel2849]

Nice explanation. Also your quantum physics essay was really helpful! Thanks Jade! :)

[@craigvdodge]

If you’re going to actually do the math, here’s a hint: Euler’s formula is your bestie.

[@Jinx-iw6zb]

Euler is my homie

[@MarcelinoDeseo]

Euler rules!

[@kindlin]

@@Xaminn That's actually substitution (E->R), not rearrangement.

[@Xaminn]

@@kindlin Lmao. Im a dummy. I didn't catch that. Thank you!

[@DelfinaKS]

I though you would end the video with a wave function equation to describe the probability of finding a new video from you on any given day with the functioning tending to zero for the rest of December and having a peak in January 2020 when you are back from the break!!!

[@DarkNeutrino_R]

Now this is the kind of videos which i wanted when i subscribed. So its absolutely amazing. Good job as always.

[@cbbhvjc]

This is the best explanation I have every heard for this subject, thanks for posting!

[@riccardocelori1101]

Probably the best Video explaining the probability functions:)

[@upandatom]

:D

[@shivimish9962]

But I have seen flammable maths (YT channel) derive the Schrödinger equation, what about that?

[@michaelsommers2356]

It depends on what you mean by 'derivation'. Sure, if you make a bunch of assumptions about QM, you can go through a chain of reasoning to arrive at S's eq., but can you derive it from first principles?

[@otis267]

You really explained wave function in a way that I could understand it thank you so much.

[@tricepruitt7265]

Totally fascinating! So valuable. Thank you for the magic!

[@DominicEdsall]

Audio sync?

[@MitzvosGolem1]

Dr Gerald Schroder PhD MIT. "All of reality is flucuations in Quantum probability waves".

[@DJVARAO]

Well, the stability of matter depends on it, so yes.

[@vexhenry]

@@DJVARAO Why?

[@DJVARAO]

​@@vexhenry A great question indeed. The intuitive notion goes like this: quantum states are statistically defined. Hence, your description inherits all the statistical traits. One of them is that of "expectation value" which is the average quantity obtained after a measurement. Another consequence of this statistical nature of QM is the existence of deviations from these average values, which are broadly called quantum fluctuations (QF). They are like the standard deviation in simple statistics. But unlike classical systems, quantum fluctuations cannot be reduced at will. They are intrinsic to the system itself. And hence they acquire a more fundamental role in the whole state of the system. They are directly linked to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. QF allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles, whose effects are measurable, for example, in the effective charge of the electron. These, and other considerations support the idea that the origin of matter is fundamentally dependent on quantum fluctuations.

[@MitzvosGolem1]

@Vendicar Kahn tell Dr Gerald Schroder PhD MIT Manhattan project scientist professor there ... Are you still in high school?

[@SaberTooth2251]

If you consider what imaginary numbers are supposed to represent, then the two phases of sine and cosine meet at perpendicular angles to form the pen of a helix. It's really exactly what eulers formula explicitly states - that a helix is constructed by perpendicular sine and cosine waves. Because of this, we can look only at the radius from the center of the helix, and we find that the area swept out by the helix grows proportional to the square of the radius (we are sweeping out an area, after all). It is this reason that we square the wave function, not because we don't want negative probabilities, but because we must compress 2-dimensional numerical probability into 1-dimensional spacial probability

[@peetiegonzalez1845]

I'd love to see you do a video on the Delayed Choice experiments and the potential implications for the nature of time, and even free will. Elitzur and Dolev's recent expansions on the subject are just mindblowing.

[@questioneverything4491]

Schrödinger proves the importance of getting more women into STEM.

[@anujarora0]

I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it. (Erwin Schrodinger talking about quantum mechanics)

[@Darkanight]

thanks for such nice video, Jade. wish you a good vacation and a happy new year :)

[@sudhakarankarunakaran6932]

Wonderful. Simple and clear. Illustrated the difference between wave function and other functions in maths. 👌

[@JackKirbyFan]

One of the best explanations of this equation I have seen. Incredible. you have a gift for teaching.

[@upandatom]

thank you Dave!

[@luischavesdev]

Sorry im late, but hey, great video! (lovely animations btw) Hope you had a great Christmas and best wishes for this new upcoming decade!

[@CuriosityGuy]

This video just cleared up a lot of my doubts. Thank you so much Jade

[@bill-zy6dg]

thank you Jade, and a good year to you

[@macsarcule]

This is the best explanation of the wave function I’ve seen or read in many years of being a physics enthusiast. Thank you so much! 🙂

[@felaruccia]

I think I have a new favorite KZbin Channel....congrats for your excellent work!

[@stevendee6800]

Thanks for doing these videos big help, much love😘

[@Rajesh29222]

I have gone across all possible videos about wave function but u r the one who clarify it. Atleast a little.....btw ur a great teacher.....❣️

[@ffhashimi]

You always make difficult concepts much easier to understand; with very cute representations; for me every time you talk about quantum mechanics I become less and less confused; I hope you continue this, Thanks and yes; Schrodinger was a naughty physicist :)

[@david203]

I think a rough answer to "what does the Schrödinger equation mean" is not that its square is the probability of finding a particle at a given place and time (that is part of the Copenhagen Interpretation, and need not be an axiom). The rough answer is that it describes everything of interest (including energy, wave polarization, momentum, position, and anything else) about an experiment involving tiny particles, especially the boundary conditions of the experiment. For example, for the double-slit experiment, the Schrödinger equation describes the paths that particles can take from a slit to the screen, if you imagine those paths to be deterministic. To do this, the Schrödinger equation must implicitly describe the sizes and positions of the two slits and how that geometry affects tiny particles. ("Tiny" means of the size of an atom or smaller.) The wave interference that we observe is specified by the Schrödinger equation, even for an experiment where photons are going through a random slit,. one at a time.

[@frankieclayton9303]

Love how you explained it!!

[@mdfahim35]

You described wave function in the simplest words possible which helped me to understand it better.

[@moltenguava9418]

You got an awesome thing going here. Keep it up!

[@ozsanchez6388]

I’m in the hvac industry, can you do a video regarding state change and heat transfer? Love your videos and have learned so much. I’ve been tasked with training new employees and would love to use your videos as reference materials in my lessons. Keep up the great work, can’t wait for your new content.

[@ericrioux5454]

Dude ! You rock ! That was the best understanding I have gotten from a video

[@hobart0011]

I love this video. Amazing job!

[@Billy-vt3ck]

As an amateur enthusiast of modern physics, I absolutely love your videos. Something that I've always wondered about is why an electron's wave behavior can't be explained by the fact that it buzzes around at a very high speed, creating a wave-like perception? I.e similar to a fly buzzing around in a box but when you measure it's location at a precise nanosecond, it's at whatever specific location that it's at?

[@jindagi_ka_safar]

I think its the 'inspiration' that did it for Schrodinger.

[@Legendsandlessons-68]

Love the video, hope to see more. Can you construct about the Paul Dirac equation on antimatter.

[@saikat93ify]

Thanks ! I really wanted to understand this after seeing the derivation of Schrödinger’s equation in your other video !

[@jchandler]

This was a delightful video!

[@primeobjective5469]

What a *Brilliant* explanation. Thank you, Jade.

[@Think_Inc]

I see what you did there.

[@who_su]

amazing video, i couldn't believe that I really enjoyed a video about quantum physics and functions

[@imtiazalam719]

Thank U sooo Much For Making QM so easy for Us I like your video before watching it bcs i know i will completly understand it

[@collapsingwavefunction_.3356]

This video confirmed a choice I made about new screennames and raised the question of whether I actually need a harem to propel me to success... well done, Up and Atom... well done...

[@philjamieson5572]

Thanks for this. Well explained.

[@Deltelly]

Interesting you mention Schrödinger thought his wavefuntion might represent charge given that its magnitude squared, which as you say, is a probability amplitude (or density) can be multiplied by the charge on the electron to give the charge density, a measure of how the electronic charge is spread out in the system. Also on the Schrödinger equation, I think he tried to find a relativistic wave equation describing the electron first but could not. Paul Dirac did find one and when you make certain assumptions on the speed of the particles being small then Schrödinger's equation pops out as an approximation, which is so cool, especially since it comes along with some extra wierd bits describing the spin of the electron.

[@MinMax-kc8uj]

Schrodinger multiplied roots by powers. So, the closed form Fibonacci Numbers would be a good example. It's not a stable orbit, though. It wouldn't make a wave. Three holes makes a cubic. This is the study of holes, as well as waves. Which is why he needed the ladies. The wave function is a natural place to go if your first question is, "what happens if I calculate the fractions of a closed form Fibonacci Number?" There is another thing to keep in mind. There are two main functions, Fibonacci and Lucas numbers. But there are infinitely many A[n]=A[n-1]+A[n-2] sequences. And we can also use other values, a*A[n]=-b*A[n-1]-c*A[n-2].

[@nopianocovers6628]

The jewel thief example was genius and it was the first time I felt like quantum physics made sense. Thank you!

[@AloisMahdal]

This sponsor has one of best explanation of Wave Function I've heard. Well done! (I may even go visit your video...)

[@therealdjap]

You are an excellent teacher!

[@ghrey8282]

Thanks for that. Enjoy your holiday!

[@lunchmind]

second time I have watched this .THis time with notes from the first viewing. Delightful and informative. Than k you so much.

[@michaelgloria1682]

If the sole reason as to why we square the wave function is to always get a positive (or zero) probability, wouldn't it be better to get the absolute value of the wave function instead?

[@mekajyothi1277]

Same question here..

[@lamabryant9758]

so i wanted more info on the concept of a "Wave Function". You did a really fantastic job!

[@yankoshbadal]

When ever I learn something new about quantum physics my heart start beating faster ,I don't know why.

[@romanieo]

Great "end of the year" video, you went out with a BANG! Here's to cats and Schrödinger!!!

[@rayhan3654]

I wish I can like this video a million times!!! Thank you soooo much; you have made a topic that was so alien and abstract more graspable.

[@kolli123bri]

great job - keep it on

[@CometSpy]

Thus video is quite amazing! I am 14 but I am able to understand this concept. The illustrations and the examples cleared my doubts! Thank you!