What does the second derivative actually do in math and physics?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 кві 2024
- Happy Quantum Day! :) In this video we discover how we can understand the second derivative geometrically, and we derive a few physical relations using this intuition.
Link to the HQI Blog and their Quantum Shorts Contest: www.hqi-blog.com/contest
Derivation of Laplacian equal to average over sphere in 3D: isis2.cc.oberlin.edu/physics/...
Animations:
All animations created by me within Python, using Manim. To learn more about Manim and to support the community, visit here:
Link: www.manim.community/
Music:
--------------------------------------------------------------
♪ Intro by HOME
Link : midwestcollective.bandcamp.co...
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone! A quick note:
At 7:55 and onwards, there should be a vector sign over the input of the function: f(vector{x}), since now whenever we are talking about 3 dimensions, the input to the function is a coordinate in 3D space. Apologies for any mild confusion!
I remember I used to dislike when my professors would lazily forget to write vector symbols - but years later it seems I have become what I once despised, whoops.
Hope you all enjoyed the video!
-QuantumSense
It's a great video, but perhaps the visual and conceptual leap from 1D, a line plotted on a 2D graph, to a 3D scalar field was slightly glossed over? You covered it with the leap from charge density to scalar field potential but maybe just one more slide and line would have smoothed it over :-)
Very nice. I want to say that intuition is one facet one can apply to physics but very tough to apply to mathematics. But your explanation is fantastic where I also thought of many things concerning math intuitively. So, I want to say something about your clip with a point inside of the sphere where you call that point as something tangible. I can hold a sphere in my hands such as a basketball but I can never hold a point because a point has no dimension. So, when I see a point in your video I see a small sphere inside a big sphere which may be very misleading for viewers. A point having no dimension quantitatively is appropriately called x naught because is has no value. So, when you take a limit as dx goes to 0 and once the limit is reached we can only imagine that the limit has been exhausted at point zero qualitatively because at that point there is no dimension. And I have always thought that such points should have a separate notation for something imaginable and not real such as the wave function psi which is not a real wave. So, that's what my intuition tells me about points. Also, in your video you state at 8:58 minute that you showed the 3D case about the second derivative where the first case was in 1D. No, the first case is in 2D because you operate as x and f(x) which means you show a function in 2D displayed on x and y axes.
@@user-ky5dy5hl4dAgree with you. If I may suggest: Intuition is a guide to imagination of how the reality exists. Imagination is each person's view, and when we all concur using the precision of mathematics, then we are realigning our imagination to reality with precision. And when we accept internally this as TRUE, it becomes our intuitive perception, and an almost perfected view of reality. Then we take another step forward. It is why mathematics is precise, but Intuition is still learning based on existing knowledge.
@@raajnivas2550 Intuition + logic. Agree?
@@user-ky5dy5hl4d Intuition is what idiots use. Look up that word!
I never understood why there was all this talk in my classes about the second derivative/laplacian being related to an average value, but no actual calculation/explanation was ever provided. Thank you so much for doing god’s work! 🙏
You did an entire physics degree without being shown? Not even in QM? Huh
Return of the King
yes sirrrr W
The two towers >:)
😂😂
Yes🎉🎉🎉
yep
LET'S GO DUDE. I got an 9/10 in quantum mechanics I thanks to you
how it's only been an hour since the vid's upload
@@aquaishcyanother videos
nice profile pic
@@squidwarg you too
The video content was quite insightful! Thanks for the upload. I hope you'll continue to do so in the future.
Thank you! For this very clear and intuitive explanation.
This view really helps seeing the very deep philosophical connection to notions and axioms of locality in mathematical models. And it also makes the connections between wave equations and continuity equations very intuitive! ❤
free education for a guy like me who can't pursue physics due to the conflict in Manipur and now here in hyderabad getting a free education for ba course hahaha
This is one of the finest educational videos I've ever come across! Please never stop making them!!
really glad you returned , i was really fed by watching your videos on repeat , finally some new content
YOU’RE BACK!!! This is what we’ve all been waiting for, welcome back king 🙏🏻
Hope there‘s a lot more to come from your channel! Love your work!
your narrative style is absolutely captivating!
Thank you! What a great video! Multiple insights and new visualisations.
We need more channels like this! Subscribed
Great! The Schrödinger equation is postulated in many texts and one form to derivate it is using the path integral formalism, but you give a good argument about why it have the form that we know.
Welcome back bro
Hi, I found your channel just yesterday. I did check out all your videos. I don't know how to express my love and respect towards you. I'm an undergrad student from Bangladesh. I am really interested in quantum computing. I want to learn more. And your channel seems to be a great resource for people like me. Keep up good work.
You're back!
Edit: Changed the course of history from talking about his back, to the fact that he is back. You are welcome.
wow i just found gold(en content) in this channel! thank you so much keep making more this is amazing
mate youve killed this video! Such a complex idea explained so concisely
I've already read about how Laplacian can be interpreted as the difference between a point and the average of its vicinity, but your visuals nicely complement that picture. Nice work!
I think that's true if all second derivatives. After all, that's all a laplacian is. If I remember correctly, with scalars there is only one meaningful second derivative, but for vectors, 3 can be formed by permitting curl, div, and grad.
Great work man :) don't stop to make videos its really helpful !!
HE'S BACKKKK
I feel so proud of being able to follow your lecture!
Never heard this way of thinking about the 2nd derivative, provides great insigt, thank you.
Fantastic upload, maybe a series on second quantization in the future like your first one on QM?
Nice bro , that was actually great (also inspired me to create a video on some qm topic )
Thanks bro
Keep making these type of videos
Excelent video, it really gave me a new perspective on the second derivative. I wonder why the third, and other higher order derivatives are so rare in physics compared to the first and second...
Bro what have you made! Beautiful!
THE KING HIMSELF RETURNED! (thx for good video btw)
Glad you're back.
We missed u bro !! Welcome back
Nice Video as always!
Excellent video. Thank you!
This is an great video. I have a BSc in Mathematics, and I never knew about this
Honestly I hate math, mostly because I was forced to cram formulas to pass exams. But this video opened my eyes to the practicality of it, now I love math a little bit more. So thank you, currently binge watching your playlist on Math for QT.
You were forced?
As a physics major, you are carrying my ass through QM and modern physics.
Cheers! You’re amazing!!
Thanks for the simplified version of seeing QP
Love to see you using manim
Sensacional!! Fascinante!!! Congratulations from Brazil
wow, what, an upload? big fan
YOU ARE BACK!
Please make more and more videos on Physics and Math.❤️
Interesting take 🙂
The video from Feynman, which one is it? Or what was his lecture about?
Excellent! Thank you.
1 minute in and I’ve already liked and subbed!
You're back🎉🎉🎉
Finally you came back :)
No way. I actually understood everything. Thank you man
That's what I least expected. Thank you.
Even for heat equation, this is the most intuitive tool I've ever used to understand the temperature distribution. What a great explanation. I was wondering how you could understand the Newton's second law using this though.
no way ! was waiting for it
Omg the legend is back😭👏
Legendary Vid broooo Just WOWWW🙌🙌👌👌
10 mins ago? welcome back!
The heat equation is twice differentiated in space and once differentiated in time because it accurately captures the dynamics of averaging over spacetime.
Twice differentiating in space can be intuitively explained by Feynman's ball average approach. The rate of change towards the average is represented by the Laplacian.
I believe that the single differentiation in time is due to the fact that heat changes are only affected by the past. Since the present is not affected by the future, only the rate of change in one direction is considered in time, resulting in a single differentiation.
Look at "a treatise on electricity and magnetism" by Maxwell, vol I, pag 29 .... not Feynman's approach. It was well known before Feynman.
I can't grasp the physics part coz lack of relating knowledge, but the second derivative part really amazed me, didn't think about how it related with average.
He is back!!!!!! 🔥
Wowow so much calculus lore!!!😳😳😳 Great video ❤️❤️
hey, could you tell me what app you use to make these great videos? thx.
Welcome back!
As a 15 year old.All of this looks so cool!
Yessss!!!!🤩🤩🤩🤩 These are the BEST videos ever!!!🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩
nice video: I think the big question for a folowing video is this one: How this "averaging" intuition of the 2nd derivative is related to the "aceleration" intuition of the 2nd derivative when time is the studied variable?
A beautiful lesson indeed.
I think that Feynmann was talking about the Cauchy integral theorem. He stated he didn't need to know the center value just the value on the exterior ball.. that is exactly the Cauchy integral theorem -- you average the surface of the ball and you have the center value
Wow, a new video after 9 months. I miss you Bro..
I now know what happens when I 《f》around and find out. Thank you!
We missed you!
FINALLY HES BACK
Our Quantum Sensei is here!!!
Ah, another Feynman enthusiast, I see! Really, he was just an incredible person, every person who ever had the chance to be taught by him was blessed.
And, of course, great video, and very much needed for a lot of people who passionately care about these things.
Most physicists admire Feynman second to only Newton himself. He represents the joyful genius and the spirit of scientific curiosity
As I said in another comment, I saw the same concept in "a treatise on electricity and magnetism" by Maxwell, vol I, pag 29 .... so, I don't think was a feynman's idea.
You are changing the world ♾️
Nice idea about the average on the ball!
But must correct the misleading idea in the QM part - localized particles in position is equivalent to large uncertainty in conjugate (momentum) space, like you said. But this does not translate to necessarily large kinetic energy. The equivalence principle is for the mean of the distribution, and this would be the "classical" kinetic energy of the particle, which does not change due to variance. This explanation was a stretch, but you could explain this exactly with the diffusion equation, which the Schrodinger equation is just a specific case of :)
This reminds me if my Numerical Analysis class in undergrad...good times!
Excellent video
4:35 I always thought that arround = indout. Perhaps they are equal
Long awaited
Thanks for the great explanation! You won't get any further in maths if you don't have an intuition for its laws and theoremes, which makes your video especially useful. Shame most manuals in maths don't have this policy being overly formulaic at the cost of intuition.
P.S. I'm only slightly confused by you wishing us a quantum day, a superposition of which two states is it supposed to be? haha!
Super information thanks sir
I like it so much and it's very good.
I truly wish I knew what he was talking about. We only got up to IROC in high school, so he’s describing a topic that i haven’t even been introduced to.
Welcome back, on world quantum day!
Got a 2/10 on my second QM problem set. Ended with a 100% on the final and just pulled a 100 on a QM2 midterm! Would love more advanced quantum, but you gave me such a good basis :D
The next step is second quantization - redefining the non-relativistic fixed particle mode to a framework capable of analyzing relativistic many body systems in which the number of particles in a system are no longer fixed. There are quite a few approaches to this, the most common and most utilized framework being quantum field theories appropriate for the different types of fundamental interactions and particle properties.
Extending to the Fock space - the Hilbert space completion of the symmetric and antisymmetric tensors in the tensor powers of a single particle Hilbert space is standard to incorporate creation and annihilation operators of quantum states that change the eigenvalues of the number operator by one, analogous to the quantum harmonic oscillator. Something that becomes more important in QFTs.
You may have already been introduced to some of the fundamental aspects of this approach, as the natural extension beyond a Junior/Senior undergraduate QM course is the introduction of different QFTs, with particular emphasis on QED.
Excellent
very cool. Thanx !
I could not understand the statement at time stamp 14.04, the extra kinetic energy from the momentum uncertainty pushes the Gaussian outwards. Why? And how ?Can some one explain that ?
great video !
Is that Harvard thing a one off event or is it yearly? (Or maybe the host changes? Like the Olympics)
Thank you for the beautiful video. Just a question: increasing the uncertainty in the particle's momentum simply means that the particle samples a larger subset of its momentum space, and if the Gaussian distribution becomes flatter and flatter, the particle should explore high and low momentum values in the same way and kinetic energy should follow the same trend. So I don't see the link you make between the uncertainty principle and the momentum gain! Did I misunderstand something?Thank you.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that there is a fundamental limit to how precisely we can know both the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously. As the uncertainty in momentum increases, the particle's kinetic energy can vary more widely, reflecting the broader range of momentum states the particle can occupy. As the Gaussian distribution flattens, the particle is more likely to explore both high and low momentum values in a similar manner. This exploration of a larger subset of momentum space is reflected in the kinetic energy of the particle.
@@IamPoob Thank you for the answer. Suppose this argument is true. If I consider the test case of an exciton spatially and tightly confined in a quantum dot, the consequence of the argument will be that the kinetic energy of the exciton will increase according to your interpretation of the uncertainty principle, this increase will ultimately lead to a certain renormalization of the energy and the eigenstate of the exciton will change... But this conclusion is false since the exciton remains in its ground state in the spatial confinement of the quantum dot.
@quantumsensechannel, Following the logic shown in the video, I am having hard time understanding why the second derivative of the potential should be directly proportional to the first power of the charge density? I mean, how do we know that it is proportional to the first power and not some other based on the intuition?
a simple answer is no you dont, instead it guides us what the equation might look like then the work to do is to prove it
The Heisenberg intuition with a simple second derivative is very good.
Just a quick observation:
States in QM are expressed in terms of a complex vector space. Complex numbers permit expression as 2x2 matricies over a Real number Field.
Your first derivative intuition is really just a scaling factor ... the Determinant of a 2x2 matrix gives this scaling factor.
The second derivative intuition is like a divergence ... the Trace of a 2x2 matrix is this (for example SL2(R) Lie algebra is 2x2 matricies with zero trace)
The Schrodinger equation is fine for doing chemistry. However, I wonder if there is utility in building an intuition of the Dirac equation using your intuition approach and the matrix algebra. I wonder if there is a geometric intuition on the Clifford algebra commutator [A,B] and notions of adjoint and self-adjoint. For example [x,p]=ih/2*pi implies a deBroglie wave equation where lamba=h/p ... I wonder if your intuitive approach could give a deeper understanding of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?
super interesting video
Wicked insight! From feynman!
Hi, can some one explain the above intuition for the independent variable being time. We have to know the future value for computing the average right
Man, I was afraid that you were gonna forget about the heat equation. Using this reasoning it just means "the temperature at a point wants to approximate that of the surrounding points", as in a cold point surrounded by hotter points will get hotter. I think it is the absolute best example of this, because once you explain it like that it becomes trivial.
I tried to interpret the heat equation and here's what I've got:
So, if ∆f>f(x0), it means that heat will go to the x0
And if df/dt>∆f (meaning the change in temperature over time is greater than the difference of temperatures), we will have body heating
So, if the change in temperature excesses the difference of temperatures in a neighbourhood of a point, then the body will be heating, because heat will go to this neighbourhood faster than it will distribut
I hope I got it right
First off, Great lesson. Secondly, in regards to a foundational understanding of calculus/physics- what equation would be the “1+1=2” of calculus/physics? I appreciate your insight.
for calculus the obvious answer is that the derivative and integral are inverses
@@tomaseisenhammer8291 thank you! I’ll take that start!
For physics, its your intuitive/physical sense, the other parts of physics is all math/calculations
@@m_eltet thank you!
U got a sub with this one...