Can I just take a moment to say how thankful I am that you're here, doing what you're doing the way you do? You're an amazing teacher, and you cover subjects I've always wanted a comprehensible explanation of. Know there are those of us out there who genuinely see the world in a different way because of people like you. Thank you so, so, so incredibly much.
I stumbled upon this one right after watching your latest vid on neutrinos. Arvin, this has to be one of your top five. Wow! Because you touched upon questions that are close to my heart and made statements that resonated so very well with how I think about things. When you say something like 'but math is just a tool to describe reality' or 'we should not be too confident about quarks being the most fundamental', you so humbly put forward the limitations that we as humans have in describing the physical reality we inhabit. Let me assure you, this is NOT the way they are introducing these beautiful subjects in schools even now. The way things are presented is as if everything is known and we humans have mastered everything. Math is taught as if it is the end all and be all of the world. You made my evening. Cheers and a million thanks for your work.
This is one of the best visualizations, and explainers of QFT, I've seen recently, without making it too complicated. It's a nice way to bring a lot of quantum themes together (waves and particles, integer amplitudes, multiple fields, collapse of the wave function, ...).
True. And this minor modification would make it even better: When images/graphics of water/ocean are representing a quantum filed, it could be a bit easier to understand of the particle waves had limited width as well to actually look like a localize bundle of excitement if the filed not an exitment that in one dimension extends to infinite.
What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? It takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (Quantum unit).
Ash and this channel deserve all the praise for simplifying and making physics concepts graspable for a wider audience. They do exceptional work, so thank you!
Collabs help the channel grow. This channel should do some with other S-Channels! Anyway: And theres many Science-Channel who's Fan's dont know each other's channels. So here comes my plan into account: I drop random comments about 'Hey, want some recommendations about something? Anything?', get called a bot sometimes, but who cares, and sometimes people say 'Thanks, i take a look', which makes my Day!
In this moment i find myself truly grateful that you were born and that you've lived the life that lead you to this point. I hope that what ever motivation drives you maintains for many years to come.
I never understood before how particles can form momentarily in vacuum space until now. So its actually the chance additive effect of waves combining in the field to produce a virtual particle at a given space-time point. (or words to that effect. Thankyou. My mind is blown with the ease you have of explaining complex ideas.
No, if you look in QFT textbooks it's not like that at all. The description of virtual particles in the video is just something that was easy to draw and tell, not what QFT says about them.
I consider it a matter of interpretation. I don't exclude other ways of considering it. But it comes from the fact that a quantum field is never still, and since it is quantum its properties are not well defined. So sometimes you have extra energy somewhere in the field, and that is what causes the virtual particles. You can imagine this in different ways than additive waves. But it comes from a surplus energy at some point from the field and its unsteady vacuum state.
the extra energy is "old fashion perturbation theory", which Feynman ended. In the path integral approach: an initial state goes to a final state as a sum of all possible paths that conserve energy, momentum, etc: but energy can be negative or arbitrarily large in any sub-vibration, so that's a lot of paths, even if the initial and final states are just the empty vacuum. How that can't be "infinity" every time is a deep question addressed by the renormalization group equation, hopefully AA will make a video on that...the most difficult topic in rQFT.
@@DrDeuteron not to imply that you are necessarily" wrong". But I think you &AA represent two sides of the same coin,though the interpretation you reference may be considered slightly more refined. Also, the term "conservation"can be misunderstood, and there's no such thing as" negative energy".
@@xenphoton5833 the integral in the 1-loop photon diagram integrates d^4k over all (k0, k1, k2, k3)...and k0 = energy. Virtual particle live in momentum-space anyway (at least in Feynman diagrams) so it's really just labeling a negative frequency.
@@valentinmalinov8424 The further "down" they go, the more abstract and speculative it is. This raises the question whether the ultimate basis of all that is physical or material is something immaterial. And this makes sense since it seems impossible for matter to create itself or to emerge from nothing.
It has been 35 years since EE Physics……. I was able to fairly well follow along for the first 15-20 mins. After that, I just watched and enjoyed the linkage to all the hard work done over the millennia. Excellent explanation of a foundational concept. I will put on my list to watch again later.
Simpel elegant, you do a very good Job.I studied electro optics but worked only two years in this field. But still I consider Quantum mechanics as a very amazing Story.
Can you do a video on how the various fields manage to interact with each other and create bigger "unified" things. I.e if there are separate fields for all the particles, how do all of those separate excitations in different fields create an atom that stays together and behaves as 1 object, rather than independent excitations that would otherwise "float" away from each other and do their own thing?
fermion fields are weird, because they have conserved quantities, so the particles can't just go away. They also "anti commute", meaning two particle can't be in the same quantum state: it makes them look like matter.
@@jaredf6205 - Wouldn't that be rather "virtual" particles in real fields? There are virtual photons, electrons, etc. but they belong to the electromagnetic field, electron field, etc. The difference is that gauge fields (bosonic fields) act as interactions between the fermionic ("material") fields: for example the electron and the proton (or two electrons, etc.) interact via the electromagnetic field (photon field, which is ironically not electromagnetically charged). As Dr. Gamma explains these fermions have "material" properties, so they can't be in the same place at the same time (unless they have opposite spin or similar, i.e. Pauli's exclusion principle) so the waves shown in the video better reflect the behavior of photons than anything else because they can add to each other in space and time, while electrons (for instance) can't unless in very specific ways (they do add up in time however because the double slit experiment applies to them but not in space).
OK, that might have been the best QFT explanation I've ever come across. I just stumbled upon this channel last week, and feel like I've just found a gold mine. All explained at just the right level for me!
Collabs help the channel grow. This channel should do some with other S-Channels! Anyway: And theres many Science-Channel who's Fan's dont know each other's channels. So here comes my plan into account: I drop random comments about 'Hey, want some recommendations about something? Anything?', get called a bot sometimes, but who cares, and sometimes people say 'Thanks, i take a look', which makes my Day!
I'm pleased that you brought up the fact that our understanding of physics is based on mathematical models, and not the actual processes themselves. Our desire to produce a grand unified theory is more to do with our need for simplification rather than a real description of the universe.
This might be a little misleading. Our understand of physics is also backed by empirical evidence. These are not just mathematical models that make sense, we also collect empirical evidence to back them up.
@@mcmoswane I certainly agree with gathering empirical evidence to support mathematical models. And quantum theory has a lot of evidence to back it up. I just feel that although the models agree with everything thrown at them, they are just models after all. A single piece of evidence could require that the model needs tweaking, or at worst re-appraising. That's why physics remains so interesting.
So much is hidden by language. And so much is unsaid or assumed. Thank you for this. The emphasis on this being a mathematical construct and not necessarily direct evidence is enlightening.
The best and simplest explanation about how everything fits together I ever heard. Well done. It got me thinking, the issue is always time. It is time that does not fit. 1.It seems like time does not exist in the quantum realm. 2.A photon experiences no time until interaction. 3.Delayed-choice quantum eraser, backwards in time. 4.Entanglement, time is not an issue. 5.Gravitational time dilation, the presence of mass and energy warp spacetime, mostly time. 6.The rate at which time passes depends on your frame of reference. 7.The universe doesn't care about the speed of light. Then it does not care about time either. The speed of light is constant for all observers, probably because time has nothing to do with it. Time ceases to exist in a black hole, a singularity is just a different form of quantum state. The inexplicably rapid inflation of the universe. As long as the baby universe was in a quantum stat there was no time, except maybe if viewed from the outside or from an another dimension. Conclusion. Time is an emergent phenomenon. You can not measure something without isolating it and interacting with it. Interaction means emergence in time. Any thoughts?
Sorry, I meant to say, look at his previous videos about "How Quantum Mechanics produces REALITY & perhaps ARROW of TIME | wave collapse & Decoherence" and "The Stunning link between Entropy, time & information | Science behind Tenet"
Really helpful video and metaphor! Thank you for taking me through the basics in the beginning before you get to the main point, I always appreciate a summary of the basics first even if I've seen them before.
Hi Arvin..... This is "THE BEST" explaination I have ever come across that anyone can give in simple words. I am so impresssed and do not have words to explain myself.... I am following your channel from last 2-3 years...I found your videos very informative and all the videos are having a practical/ physical significance of particular concept.... Do you have any dedicated video on wave function and its significance.... ??
All these 50 years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, "What are light quanta?" Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken." -- Albert Einstein in 1951.
Absolutely love your episodes. You speak to so may of us “lay-humans” about something so incredibly complicated yet convey it in a way easy and beautifully imaginative to understand. That’s genius. When I’ve tried to explain the collapse of the wave function by observation Ive used the 1st person shooter video game analogy. Hear me out, lol. If you think about it, if you look down at yourself right now, all you see of yourself is your limbs and torso. No upper chest, no neck, face. Just like many 1st person video games. What you see in “your reality” is akin to what “your character” sees in his/her reality, (what’s on the screen) (You just see both “real” and virtual realities at once being the controller of this avatar, obviously ) I tell a person to visualize your video game character walking up to a house. The house is now on your screen. You see it as does your make believe avatar. Now, spin your character 180 degrees. Ask “where did the house go”?? It’s there… but it’s not. When the video game character is spun away from the house, the “house” goes back into 0’s and 1’s on a hard drive. Waiting to be pulled up again by the processor being told to do so by a “consciousness.” Thus, in your subjective reality, is what’s behind you “not really particles”? Just a wave of probabilities and until you observe this fief of waves does the particles not need to “exists” until consciousness collapses the wave function? If someone is facing you, the “waves of reality” collapse behind you but ONLY in “their” reality and what’s behind them collapses in YOUR reality?? Is this what’s going on?? Just a pondering
2600 yrs ago Lord sakyamuni budha explained all these universal phenomena and further revealed all conditiond things are impermnance suffering and not self (atman).To stop all suffering the only way is sacred eightfold path discribed by lord samyak sambuddha . In many discourses (suttas) lord buddha revealed world as a illusion created by our craving that lead us to all these suffering .
Far and away the best explanation I have found on this subject. It is usually so casually accepted about the act of measurement causing the so-called collapse, that I was glad to see your introduction actually call it a problem. Because it certainly is a non-intuitive and unsatisfying explanation. Your whole introduction echoed my frustrations exactly, about how lacking the explanations usually are. Thanks for providing this! I look forward to viewing more of your videos now that I am subscribed.
As someone who has been self-learning about Quantum Mechanics and its associated concepts, I want to thank you for your coherent and excellent explanations. I'm going to dive into the videos from the beginning when I have time and get up to date before awaiting the upcoming one. As someone who has a degree in law but who had serious health issues at the age we were being taught physics at school and so missed everything, this is what youtube is all about. Amazing! 💜✌
Other people just focus on saying the same as everyone else when teaching about this subject. Your video is one of the most detailed I've ever watched. Ty for that!
I hope to God there are people out there, much smarter than me, watching these same Arvin Ash videos with same awe and unfathomable reverence and that they will make a major leap in the understanding of what reality is.
Great video, thank you ! I would love Arvin to create a video on how entanglement is manifested in QFT ? and how this non-local correlation fits the locality of QFT ?
I am obsessed with physics and it’s always been my dream to take us to other galaxies and through wormholes and achieve warp drive and change our worlds civilization forever and every video I watch from you helps me know for for my journey and gross me to be prepared thank you!
Great presentation - thank you Arvin! In my humble opinion, quantum field theory is currently the best approach to understanding of reality around us, but maybe it's all taking place in one multi-dimensional quantum field, not multiple fields. Those extra dimensions that we can't observe on our scale, are responsible for behaviors that appear weird to us in our observable three dimensions. In that multi-dimensional field, energy signatures we interpret as various particles propagate simultaneously, a little bit like radio waves of different frequencies propagate through space. Looking at the big picture, the universe is one big quantum field with small scale phenomena building the large scale image. I think the large scale landscape of the quantum field is responsible for behavior of the universe, not some "dark matter" or "dark energy" constructs we've invented. Quantum field does not have to be flat :-)
The answer to your question is "YES" . This is the reason why!! You need to understand we live in a magnetic world, EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE IS RELATIVE TO MAGNETICS!!! The speed of light is directly proportional to the particular magnetic field it travels through!!!! E=MC2 is nothing more then a JOKE!! E=MD, (M'agnetic D'ensity), EVERYTHING you see and feel is in our magnetic realm all tree's all plant life all human life, We are all a magnetic entity!
Thanks Arvin, I really enjoy watching all of your videos. I'm really learning a lot about quantum mechanics and the true nature of the universe. I'ts really wonderful ...!!!
2 hours deep into the research rabbit hole. This all started because I wanted to know what a photon was made of, and all the answers were unsatisfactory. I ended up with more questions than answers. Thank you for explaining half the questions I had in only 2 videos.
A fundamental particle is an excitation in a quantum field that is constantly in flux. There are at least as many fields as there are particles in the standard model. Each particle can propagate in its field. The interactions of these fields and exchange of energy results in particle creation and annihilation.
energies bobbing up and down in levels, layers. when they are testing for compatibility the charges spike; releasing energy in the testing to see if they bond to form something new that sustains a stable charge.
Arvin, your channel keeps me coming back, I love how you explain complex concepts in ways that are intuitive and easy to understand. Please never stop making these amazing videos!
Elementary particle, like electron, can be understood as a persistent closed flux of energy of electromagnetic oscillatons. Toroidal ring of homogeneous flux with radius r corresponding to reduced Compton wavelength {lambda/(2.pi) } = r. With mass m={h(trans)/c}.{1/r}, mass as a measure of real vacuum inertia to bending of energy flux (bending of Poynting vector). In a given referense frame. Bending {1/r} gives birth to mass. Or not, like for photon with no bending to ring, zero 1/r(infinity) Spherical symmetry of E, B stereosweep to spherical angle 4.pi gives impression of effective "stationary" field , atributed to elementary charge |e-|. In reality just mathematical construct, ratio of on ring centrifugal force in [N] and effective electric intensity E(effective) in [V.m^-1], i.e. N.m/V or J/V = [C]. |e-|={h(trans).c}/{r^2.Eo/(2.efactor)}. Eo/(2.efactor)= E(effectiv)=c.B(effect) r^2.Eo is invariant. So |e-| is invariant. |e-| = h(trans).pi/{pi.r^2.B(effect)}= h(trans).pi/Fio and Fio is magnetic flux quantum, known from superconductivity. Fio=h/(2.|e-|). Its inverse is Josephson constant, ratio of ring angular speed [Hz](energy flux with speed of light) and voltage [V] on a halfring E(effective).r.pi. Exactly like measured. Eo , Bo are estimated from mass density in the toroid. Toroid dimensions from electron magnetic momentum. More details in my ResearchGate pages (World of the rings, (Pseudo)science fairy tails, Planck view of black hole, etc.). Thanks for excelent readings of lectures. And interest to the field. It's pleasure for me to listen you. Pavol Usak, Bratislava
The visuals are hard due to the linearity of trying to draw this action, in the particle(?) form the field it would generate(?) would be radial and 360 deg spherical in all direction of its location/mass and travelling with a direction and velocity. Hence the first quantum drawing program is required. Great vid TY sir.
What an amazing video, sadly it ended ☹ waiting for more great videos. I want to ask, if the field shown here as waves are more 1D+height than actual 2D+height representation? Feels like they should have some boundings than hanving an infinite length in one direction, like at 6:33
I mean, I know I’m a smart guy, but man, the amount of concentration it takes to follow this (I don’t have a math or physics background) is exhausting. Profoundly interesting stuff. This will be on my mind for weeks.
I know this is an older video, but just wanted to say thank you for putting it together. I am a teacher and had a very curious student ask me about field theory (kid is only in grade 8) so I've been looking at other videos to get a sense of how to explain it in somewhat simpler terms. I love your analogy about quantizing a field and best of all I actually learned something that I wasn't expecting to learn. Up until watching this video virtual particle had never really made much sense besides just being told they existed - your ocean wave explanation just made everything click into place and suddenly not only does their existence make sense to me, but even the reason why a vacuum can create them! Thanks again!
Anybody who mentions ocean waves in connection with virtual particles to a grade eight kid should be punished. That is absolute not what virtual particles are. They are mathematical terms in a particular type of perturbation theoretical expansion. There are neither real nor virtual particles in nature. Please do not lead the kids astray here. If a student asks you what a quantum is tell them the truth: a quantum is a small amount of energy. A virtual quantum is a small change in the energy levels of quantum systems.
So we are really all just interconnected vibrating waves propagating on an infinite sea of quantum fields. My cosmic hippie friend Dave would just love this lol!
Killer video. I've seen a lot of videos on this topic but you bring the healthiest level of scepticism I've seen. I kept thinking about the fact these "particles" are either purely math or energy detections. The idea of fields of energy perturbations definitely makes sense when compared to our maths and theories but i wonder sometimes how much of this is just us fitting our theories to our observations. Had we somehow made these observations without an existing theory i wonder how different our resulting theories may have been. It's also conceptually weird to think of all particles arising from fluctuations in a field, yet these fluctuations remain constant for years throughout space and time. Like I can fly across the world and spend 5 years abroad, come back and have plenty of the same atoms as before. Conceptually to think of the persistence required of these seemingly fickle fields/particles to persist over change in space and time is really weird and just seemingly improbable. Sorry for the rambling, love your videos!!
Good question. Many physicists think the answer will ultimately be shown to be yes, but so far there is no evidence that it is such. We don't have a quantum description of gravity.
I find Arvin´s explanations so refreshing, not because I end up understanding everything, but because he is willing to say that we can´t actually see all the things we think we know. My favorite parts are when he says, "This is just what the math is telling us!" That resonates with me, since videos about physics usually state things as facts, without saying how that has been proven or detected. I always wonder if there´s a machine somewhere "seeing" a photon move like a wave.
String theory is about describing the fundamental particles in terms of vibrating strings in multiple dimensions. It is probably incorrect, or at least incomplete.
I'm not very good with math and I always struggled with physics in school. But now I have a basic working knowledge of quantum physics, particles, relativity and the standard model, all thanks to this amazing channel. It's wayyyy more fun to understand the theory and ideas behind these things than being stuck in the math of it. Thank you!
The answer to your question is "YES" . This is the reason why!! You need to understand we live in a magnetic world, EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE IS RELATIVE TO MAGNETICS!!! The speed of light is directly proportional to the particular magnetic field it travels through!!!! E=MC2 is nothing more then a JOKE!! E=MD, (M'agnetic D'ensity), EVERYTHING you see and feel is in our magnetic realm all tree's all plant life all human life, We are all a magnetic entity!
Sorry if this is a random question, but I don't know where else to ask lol. Is it correct to interpret the "particle" aspect of the wave-particle duality as being due to there being a quantized amount of energy contained and transferred when it is interacted with? And the wave aspect is because the energy causes a wave-like excitation in the field? I feel like I was able to have a more intuitive understanding of it when I started thinking about it this way, but I'm not sure if I'm over-simplifying or if I'm missing something.
Yes, that's a good way to think about it. Another aspect is that all interactions in QFT are local, two fields always interact at some particular point, this is why we see individual dots in our detectors and call them particles.
Love your speaking style and the visualizations. Question for you: using your one meter quantum sea example, if an energy input is not enough to achieve a two meter wave, where does the energy go? Or is energy quantized in a way that aligns perfectly with the discrete increments of the field?
Energy is transferred from one field to another. If there is not enough energy to make a wave in the field, then that energy does not get transferred, and remains in it original field.
To be fair classes are meant to be live, it's an interactive lecture and it's not like majority of the teachers "teach" for the sake of teaching, most just see it as a job. It's rare to see passionate ones that actually have a fun class, the world is pretty lame, nothing can be really done about that
Is my understanding correct that a camera placed next to a double slit screen will affect a photon acting either as a wave or a particle depending upon whether the camera is turned on and taking pictures? Stating the question another way, does the mere act of turning the camera off suddenly cause the photon to behave as a wave?
@@ArvinAsh Can you give an example of "a device that interacts with the particle"? Assuming one kind of such device is a camera, how is it that the camera in the "on" position is deemed to be interacting with the particle (thereby causing a wave-collapse), whereas no such collapse occurs if the camera is in the "off" position?
Hey Arvin, I've long wondered what "happens" to that energy that doesn't meet the quanta requirement? If I try to add 0.5 waves to the system, am I just literally unable to interact with the field or will the energy be taken somewhere else like spread throughout the system?
The energy would come from some other field. So typically, no transfer of energy occurs if it is not enough to create a particle in a new field. So this means the energy would remain in its original field instead of being transferred to the new field.
Incredible video. Youve made the most understandable explainer of quantum field theory that exists. Pardon me while i share this video with everyone in my contacts list lol
This has to be one of the best and most easily digestible explanations I've ever seen. I was glued to the screen! Thank you! Now I wonder, what exactly is energy that makes it so critical to excitations of the quantum field? (I hope I stated that correctly!)
@@nemlehetkurvopica2454 It depends on what kind of energy you're talking about. Is it potential energy or kinetic energy? Excitations are the kinetic energy that makes to "appear" matter, now the big question is, where does this energy come from? Maybe it isn't even a valid question, since as far as we know there may be a fixed (finite or infinite?) amount of kinetic energy that is just "playing around itself". Uncertainty principle says that energy can't stay fully and truly static, and our concept of "potential energy" may be just a practical abstraction for how a big "issolated" classical system (I preffer the term _recurrent system_ because of the way I understand this all) may evolve against other systems. Now this is what makes me going nuts. We may say that energy is *the thing* that exists, but energy is just a mathematical abstraction we make to explain behavioural aspects of reality, so *what* is reality? Well, we have fields, but they're also a mathematical abstraction... So reality may just be behavioural, and there may be "nothing", which seems to me extremely ilogical and counterintuitive (and I'm pretty sure that it seems the same for everyone), but how could we know? Our logic and intuition has been proved to be extremely flawled over the last decades. But this is different, isn't it? Existence itself just can't be denied, can it? But why? Are we sure we truly understand why? And why a "behavioural existence" isn't enough? Are we completely sure that there must be something fundamental, static, solid that pervades reality? Why?
@@nemlehetkurvopica2454 That's precissely the point. Phisics are missing something terribly fundamental (if there is anything like that). QM is yelling that "energy" is all that exists, but energy is a mathematical abstraction for a behavioural aspect of reality. There are energy exchanges in-between energy-made systems, fields do not exist, and "charge" is the recursive cycle of energy/motion which is sustaining a certain "material" system (which also implies the kind of potential of that system against other systems). I'm just pointing to the same as you do, but you're the one who is biased still thinking that energy must come from something else. *As far as we know* all reality is behavioural, so *as far as we know* there could be actually nothing "truly phisical" or "truly material" about reality.
The animation of constructively interfering waves in the quantum field ocean creating virtual particles that last for a very few seconds was a masterpiece for me... 💎💎💎
Can I just take a moment to say how thankful I am that you're here, doing what you're doing the way you do? You're an amazing teacher, and you cover subjects I've always wanted a comprehensible explanation of. Know there are those of us out there who genuinely see the world in a different way because of people like you. Thank you so, so, so incredibly much.
Wow. Thank you for that. Your kind words are much appreciated. You summed up the reason I do this!
En el anterior video intenté expresar lo mismo con mis palabras. Es de lo mejor que vi explicando! Es impresionante
@@ArvinAsh Math is just an incomplete tool to describe reality
@@pedrosuarez544 Rather math is still the most relevant tool to prove reality scientifically
@@pedrosuarez544 u cant even prove a single fact scientifically without math...
I stumbled upon this one right after watching your latest vid on neutrinos. Arvin, this has to be one of your top five. Wow! Because you touched upon questions that are close to my heart and made statements that resonated so very well with how I think about things. When you say something like 'but math is just a tool to describe reality' or 'we should not be too confident about quarks being the most fundamental', you so humbly put forward the limitations that we as humans have in describing the physical reality we inhabit. Let me assure you, this is NOT the way they are introducing these beautiful subjects in schools even now. The way things are presented is as if everything is known and we humans have mastered everything. Math is taught as if it is the end all and be all of the world. You made my evening. Cheers and a million thanks for your work.
Well said 🫡
This is one of the best visualizations, and explainers of QFT, I've seen recently, without making it too complicated. It's a nice way to bring a lot of quantum themes together (waves and particles, integer amplitudes, multiple fields, collapse of the wave function, ...).
I agree. Your visualizations are fantastic. By the way, I loved your crime scene! Thanks for the great work
Add a pinch of choice and you have it!! (Just remember that I thought of it first!!!)
True. And this minor modification would make it even better: When images/graphics of water/ocean are representing a quantum filed, it could be a bit easier to understand of the particle waves had limited width as well to actually look like a localize bundle of excitement if the filed not an exitment that in one dimension extends to infinite.
What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common?
It takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (Quantum unit).
One of the best physics videos I’ve ever seen. The explanation of virtual particles was absolutely brilliant!
Badly named, though, since they were named "virtual" before we had detetcted and isolated them.
great stuff
hey Jade 😊
Omg! I’m such a fan of you too. I love my nerds. 🤓
Sure is
Hi
Jade and Arvin should be household names.
I just wanna say, this is the best visualization I've seen for this topic.
Ash and this channel deserve all the praise for simplifying and making physics concepts graspable for a wider audience. They do exceptional work, so thank you!
Collabs help the channel grow. This channel should
do some with other S-Channels!
Anyway: And theres many Science-Channel who's Fan's dont know each other's channels.
So here comes my plan into account: I drop random comments about 'Hey, want
some recommendations about something? Anything?',
get called a bot sometimes, but who cares,
and sometimes people say 'Thanks, i take a look',
which makes my Day!
In this moment i find myself truly grateful that you were born and that you've lived the life that lead you to this point. I hope that what ever motivation drives you maintains for many years to come.
Wow, thank you. But alas, I won't be able to sustain this forever. Another year perhaps.
_Paraphrasing Hamlet act 1: “Don’t lay this flattering unction to his soul”._ _Original: to _*_YOUR_*_ soul._
I have to say, my favorite videos are those that pertain to Quantum Fields. Who agrees with me? Keep up the great work Arvin!
This was such a great video. I don't think I've ever heard quantum field theory explained so clearly. You're an incredible science communicator!
I never understood before how particles can form momentarily in vacuum space until now.
So its actually the chance additive effect of waves combining in the field to produce a virtual particle at a given space-time point. (or words to that effect.
Thankyou. My mind is blown with the ease you have of explaining complex ideas.
No, if you look in QFT textbooks it's not like that at all. The description of virtual particles in the video is just something that was easy to draw and tell, not what QFT says about them.
I consider it a matter of interpretation. I don't exclude other ways of considering it. But it comes from the fact that a quantum field is never still, and since it is quantum its properties are not well defined. So sometimes you have extra energy somewhere in the field, and that is what causes the virtual particles.
You can imagine this in different ways than additive waves. But it comes from a surplus energy at some point from the field and its unsteady vacuum state.
the extra energy is "old fashion perturbation theory", which Feynman ended. In the path integral approach: an initial state goes to a final state as a sum of all possible paths that conserve energy, momentum, etc: but energy can be negative or arbitrarily large in any sub-vibration, so that's a lot of paths, even if the initial and final states are just the empty vacuum.
How that can't be "infinity" every time is a deep question addressed by the renormalization group equation, hopefully AA will make a video on that...the most difficult topic in rQFT.
@@DrDeuteron not to imply that you are necessarily" wrong". But I think you &AA represent two sides of the same coin,though the interpretation you reference may be considered slightly more refined. Also, the term "conservation"can be misunderstood, and there's no such thing as" negative energy".
@@xenphoton5833 the integral in the 1-loop photon diagram integrates d^4k over all (k0, k1, k2, k3)...and k0 = energy. Virtual particle live in momentum-space anyway (at least in Feynman diagrams) so it's really just labeling a negative frequency.
This video proved me wrong, I was sure I would never understand this stuff, but this makes so much sense. Thank you!
Arvin: "The world we are in is physical."
Also Arvin: "We don't know what physical means."
Sounds like something Jordan Peterson would say.
@@urssaf343 Lol, well, I'm not a big fan of Peterson, but he has some good insights from time to time.
They don't know even what a field is! What it is made of? Particles? Or just mathematical speculations?
@@valentinmalinov8424 The further "down" they go, the more abstract and speculative it is. This raises the question whether the ultimate basis of all that is physical or material is something immaterial. And this makes sense since it seems impossible for matter to create itself or to emerge from nothing.
I think Olivia Newton-John knows what it means. At least, she wants to get physical.
It has been 35 years since EE Physics……. I was able to fairly well follow along for the first 15-20 mins. After that, I just watched and enjoyed the linkage to all the hard work done over the millennia. Excellent explanation of a foundational concept. I will put on my list to watch again later.
except the video was 14 minutes, bot.
A brilliant interpretation of a particle in the light of Quantum field theory ...You have made it simple .
Re “in the light of”:
-
Oh no, you’ve complicated it again. 😉
Simpel elegant, you do a very good Job.I studied electro optics but worked only two years in this field. But still I consider Quantum mechanics as a very amazing Story.
Can you do a video on how the various fields manage to interact with each other and create bigger "unified" things. I.e if there are separate fields for all the particles, how do all of those separate excitations in different fields create an atom that stays together and behaves as 1 object, rather than independent excitations that would otherwise "float" away from each other and do their own thing?
fermion fields are weird, because they have conserved quantities, so the particles can't just go away. They also "anti commute", meaning two particle can't be in the same quantum state: it makes them look like matter.
Also, are there virtual fields that aren’t really fields but are composites of other fields interacting that only seem like a field?
@@jaredf6205 - Wouldn't that be rather "virtual" particles in real fields? There are virtual photons, electrons, etc. but they belong to the electromagnetic field, electron field, etc.
The difference is that gauge fields (bosonic fields) act as interactions between the fermionic ("material") fields: for example the electron and the proton (or two electrons, etc.) interact via the electromagnetic field (photon field, which is ironically not electromagnetically charged). As Dr. Gamma explains these fermions have "material" properties, so they can't be in the same place at the same time (unless they have opposite spin or similar, i.e. Pauli's exclusion principle) so the waves shown in the video better reflect the behavior of photons than anything else because they can add to each other in space and time, while electrons (for instance) can't unless in very specific ways (they do add up in time however because the double slit experiment applies to them but not in space).
I don't think even scientists understand that kind of interaction fully?
@@ShauriePvs - Sadly enough they are too satisfied with the maths.
OK, that might have been the best QFT explanation I've ever come across.
I just stumbled upon this channel last week, and feel like I've just found a gold mine. All explained at just the right level for me!
I am always liking Arvin's videos on "Right now!"
Collabs help the channel grow. This channel should
do some with other S-Channels!
Anyway: And theres many Science-Channel who's Fan's dont know each other's channels.
So here comes my plan into account: I drop random comments about 'Hey, want
some recommendations about something? Anything?',
get called a bot sometimes, but who cares,
and sometimes people say 'Thanks, i take a look',
which makes my Day!
This is the best visualization of QFT I have seen. And the best explanation for providing an intuitive sense of this I have seen. Great job! Love
I'm pleased that you brought up the fact that our understanding of physics is based on mathematical models, and not the actual processes themselves.
Our desire to produce a grand unified theory is more to do with our need for simplification rather than a real description of the universe.
This might be a little misleading. Our understand of physics is also backed by empirical evidence. These are not just mathematical models that make sense, we also collect empirical evidence to back them up.
@@mcmoswane I certainly agree with gathering empirical evidence to support mathematical models. And quantum theory has a lot of evidence to back it up. I just feel that although the models agree with everything thrown at them, they are just models after all. A single piece of evidence could require that the model needs tweaking, or at worst re-appraising. That's why physics remains so interesting.
So much is hidden by language. And so much is unsaid or assumed. Thank you for this. The emphasis on this being a mathematical construct and not necessarily direct evidence is enlightening.
The best and simplest explanation about how everything fits together I ever heard. Well done. It got me thinking, the issue is always time. It is time that does not fit.
1.It seems like time does not exist in the quantum realm. 2.A photon experiences no time until interaction. 3.Delayed-choice quantum eraser, backwards in time. 4.Entanglement, time is not an issue. 5.Gravitational time dilation, the presence of mass and energy warp spacetime, mostly time. 6.The rate at which time passes depends on your frame of reference. 7.The universe doesn't care about the speed of light. Then it does not care about time either. The speed of light is constant for all observers, probably because time has nothing to do with it. Time ceases to exist in a black hole, a singularity is just a different form of quantum state. The inexplicably rapid inflation of the universe. As long as the baby universe was in a quantum stat there was no time, except maybe if viewed from the outside or from an another dimension. Conclusion. Time is an emergent phenomenon. You can not measure something without isolating it and interacting with it. Interaction means emergence in time. Any thoughts?
cvn you plevse explxin this futher
Sorry, I meant to say, look at his previous videos about "How Quantum Mechanics produces REALITY & perhaps ARROW of TIME | wave collapse & Decoherence" and "The Stunning link between Entropy, time & information | Science behind Tenet"
I posted a comment on Arvins latest video, where I explain my thoughts further, if you are interested.@@glomajesty
Really helpful video and metaphor! Thank you for taking me through the basics in the beginning before you get to the main point, I always appreciate a summary of the basics first even if I've seen them before.
Hi Arvin..... This is "THE BEST" explaination I have ever come across that anyone can give in simple words. I am so impresssed and do not have words to explain myself.... I am following your channel from last 2-3 years...I found your videos very informative and all the videos are having a practical/ physical significance of particular concept....
Do you have any dedicated video on wave function and its significance.... ??
This is the best and the most simplified version of quantum field I've come across. Thank you so much for this wonderful video. 😊😊
All these 50 years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, "What are light quanta?" Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken." -- Albert Einstein in 1951.
Perhaps more 100 years...🦧🙈🙉🙃
Absolutely love your episodes.
You speak to so may of us “lay-humans” about something so incredibly complicated yet convey it in a way easy and beautifully imaginative to understand.
That’s genius.
When I’ve tried to explain the collapse of the wave function by observation Ive used the 1st person shooter video game analogy.
Hear me out, lol.
If you think about it, if you look down at yourself right now, all you see of yourself is your limbs and torso.
No upper chest, no neck, face.
Just like many 1st person video games.
What you see in “your reality” is akin to what “your character” sees in his/her reality, (what’s on the screen)
(You just see both “real” and virtual realities at once being the controller of this avatar, obviously )
I tell a person to visualize your video game character walking up to a house.
The house is now on your screen.
You see it as does your make believe avatar.
Now, spin your character 180 degrees.
Ask “where did the house go”??
It’s there… but it’s not.
When the video game character is spun away from the house, the “house” goes back into 0’s and 1’s on a hard drive.
Waiting to be pulled up again by the processor being told to do so by a “consciousness.”
Thus, in your subjective reality, is what’s behind you “not really particles”?
Just a wave of probabilities and until you observe this fief of waves does the particles not need to “exists” until consciousness collapses the wave function?
If someone is facing you, the “waves of reality” collapse behind you but ONLY in “their” reality and what’s behind them collapses in YOUR reality??
Is this what’s going on??
Just a pondering
Incredible! You are by far the best at visualizing concepts that are nearly impossible for me understand unless I can see it.
You're so great at explaining things that are way beyond the limit of what a human mind can conceptualize.
Mr.Ash, I'd like to express my absolute respect and admiration for Your knowledge, understanding and presenting level. Thank You!
This was well-written and illustrated and the narration was clear and enjoyable. A+
One of the best physics channels there is. Arvin you rule….
2600 yrs ago Lord sakyamuni budha explained all these universal phenomena and further revealed all conditiond things are impermnance suffering and not self (atman).To stop all suffering the only way is sacred eightfold path discribed by lord samyak sambuddha . In many discourses (suttas) lord buddha revealed world as a illusion created by our craving that lead us to all these suffering .
Far and away the best explanation I have found on this subject. It is usually so casually accepted about the act of measurement causing the so-called collapse, that I was glad to see your introduction actually call it a problem. Because it certainly is a non-intuitive and unsatisfying explanation. Your whole introduction echoed my frustrations exactly, about how lacking the explanations usually are. Thanks for providing this! I look forward to viewing more of your videos now that I am subscribed.
As someone who has been self-learning about Quantum Mechanics and its associated concepts, I want to thank you for your coherent and excellent explanations. I'm going to dive into the videos from the beginning when I have time and get up to date before awaiting the upcoming one. As someone who has a degree in law but who had serious health issues at the age we were being taught physics at school and so missed everything, this is what youtube is all about. Amazing! 💜✌
Glad you find them helpful. All the best to you.
@@ArvinAsh Arvin please make a video on the topic of Quasars
Forget the earth..Now Imagine how messed up the quantum field in black hole is
Thanks for the video by the way
I just wanted to say that I appreciate science educators like this channel, bring complex studies to the common person.
Arvin Ash is one of the best physics teachers I've ever seen.
Amazing explanation. Alvin, you have an extraordinary talent for explaining the complex physics intuitively. Thank you!
When Arvin sir says ,"The answer is coming up Right now". It feels that something amazing is coming.Thank you for existing sir 💖
By far the best explanation of QFT I've seen so far, I'm finally getting a taste of it. I'm not surprised it czme from you, ty 🙏
Arvin your videos are so amazing and I learned a lot from them. Keep making great videos like this
You perfectly filled in the blanks for me in trying to read thru all the articles and theories that others put-out-there. Thank you!
This channel is criminally underrated. Love ur videos😍
Other people just focus on saying the same as everyone else when teaching about this subject.
Your video is one of the most detailed I've ever watched. Ty for that!
I'm impressed how good the videos are on this channel, you have an educational talent 🙂
I hope to God there are people out there, much smarter than me, watching these same Arvin Ash videos with same awe and unfathomable reverence and that they will make a major leap in the understanding of what reality is.
Great video, thank you ! I would love Arvin to create a video on how entanglement is manifested in QFT ? and how this non-local correlation fits the locality of QFT ?
This far the best explanation and visualization of virtual particles. Since 2009, I never understood this better. Viva la Arvin!
I am obsessed with physics and it’s always been my dream to take us to other galaxies and through wormholes and achieve warp drive and change our worlds civilization forever and every video I watch from you helps me know for for my journey and gross me to be prepared thank you!
You have a real gift, Arvin. Thanks for these wonderfully made videos.
Great presentation - thank you Arvin!
In my humble opinion, quantum field theory is currently the best approach to understanding of reality around us, but maybe it's all taking place in one multi-dimensional quantum field, not multiple fields. Those extra dimensions that we can't observe on our scale, are responsible for behaviors that appear weird to us in our observable three dimensions. In that multi-dimensional field, energy signatures we interpret as various particles propagate simultaneously, a little bit like radio waves of different frequencies propagate through space.
Looking at the big picture, the universe is one big quantum field with small scale phenomena building the large scale image. I think the large scale landscape of the quantum field is responsible for behavior of the universe, not some "dark matter" or "dark energy" constructs we've invented. Quantum field does not have to be flat :-)
The answer to your question is "YES" . This is the reason why!! You need to understand we live in a magnetic world, EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE IS RELATIVE TO MAGNETICS!!! The speed of light is directly proportional to the particular magnetic field it travels through!!!! E=MC2 is nothing more then a JOKE!! E=MD, (M'agnetic D'ensity),
EVERYTHING you see and feel is in our magnetic realm all tree's all plant life all human life, We are all a magnetic entity!
Probably the most intuitive explanation I have seen of quantum mechanics. Well done, Arvin.
Thanks Arvin, I really enjoy watching all of your videos. I'm really learning a lot about quantum mechanics and the true nature of the universe. I'ts really wonderful ...!!!
Great to hear!
2 hours deep into the research rabbit hole. This all started because I wanted to know what a photon was made of, and all the answers were unsatisfactory. I ended up with more questions than answers. Thank you for explaining half the questions I had in only 2 videos.
A fundamental particle is an excitation in a quantum field that is constantly in flux. There are at least as many fields as there are particles in the standard model. Each particle can propagate in its field. The interactions of these fields and exchange of energy results in particle creation and annihilation.
@@nemlehetkurvopica2454 because energy can not have mass.
energies bobbing up and down in levels, layers. when they are testing for compatibility the charges spike; releasing energy in the testing to see if they bond to form something new that sustains a stable charge.
@@nemlehetkurvopica2454 energy oscillations
Being familiar with this subject matter already, I still found this video to be enlightening. Well done, Dr. Ash!
Arvin, your channel keeps me coming back, I love how you explain complex concepts in ways that are intuitive and easy to understand. Please never stop making these amazing videos!
One of the very few videos that deserves to be put in the favorites list
Love ❤️Arvin ash channel from Nepal
Elementary particle, like electron, can be understood as a persistent closed flux of energy of electromagnetic oscillatons. Toroidal ring of homogeneous flux with radius r corresponding to reduced Compton wavelength {lambda/(2.pi) } = r.
With mass m={h(trans)/c}.{1/r},
mass as a measure of real vacuum inertia to bending of energy flux (bending of Poynting vector). In a given referense frame. Bending {1/r} gives birth to mass. Or not, like for photon with no bending to ring, zero 1/r(infinity)
Spherical symmetry of E, B stereosweep to spherical angle 4.pi gives impression of effective "stationary" field , atributed to elementary charge |e-|. In reality just mathematical construct, ratio of on ring centrifugal force in [N] and effective electric intensity E(effective) in [V.m^-1], i.e. N.m/V or J/V = [C].
|e-|={h(trans).c}/{r^2.Eo/(2.efactor)}.
Eo/(2.efactor)= E(effectiv)=c.B(effect)
r^2.Eo is invariant. So
|e-| is invariant.
|e-| = h(trans).pi/{pi.r^2.B(effect)}=
h(trans).pi/Fio and
Fio is magnetic flux quantum, known from superconductivity.
Fio=h/(2.|e-|).
Its inverse is Josephson constant, ratio of ring angular speed [Hz](energy flux with speed of light) and voltage [V] on a halfring E(effective).r.pi. Exactly like measured.
Eo , Bo are estimated from mass density in the toroid. Toroid dimensions from electron magnetic momentum.
More details in my ResearchGate pages (World of the rings, (Pseudo)science fairy tails, Planck view of black hole, etc.).
Thanks for excelent readings of lectures. And interest to the field. It's pleasure for me to listen you.
Pavol Usak, Bratislava
on9
I am also from Nepal
The visuals are hard due to the linearity of trying to draw this action, in the particle(?) form the field it would generate(?) would be radial and 360 deg spherical in all direction of its location/mass and travelling with a direction and velocity. Hence the first quantum drawing program is required. Great vid TY sir.
5:20 This is the most satisfying picture of particles in quantum fields I ever got!!
Fantastic. I love what we know. The math can be off-putting, but these demonstrations and explanations pull us novices along the nicely.
This is the BEST video till date. I understood everything. Thank you Arvin Ash.😀
What an amazing video, sadly it ended ☹ waiting for more great videos.
I want to ask, if the field shown here as waves are more 1D+height than actual 2D+height representation? Feels like they should have some boundings than hanving an infinite length in one direction, like at 6:33
I mean, I know I’m a smart guy, but man, the amount of concentration it takes to follow this (I don’t have a math or physics background) is exhausting. Profoundly interesting stuff. This will be on my mind for weeks.
"This is all math" it applies essentialy also to non-quantum physics :-)
Great video, thank you!
I know this is an older video, but just wanted to say thank you for putting it together. I am a teacher and had a very curious student ask me about field theory (kid is only in grade 8) so I've been looking at other videos to get a sense of how to explain it in somewhat simpler terms. I love your analogy about quantizing a field and best of all I actually learned something that I wasn't expecting to learn. Up until watching this video virtual particle had never really made much sense besides just being told they existed - your ocean wave explanation just made everything click into place and suddenly not only does their existence make sense to me, but even the reason why a vacuum can create them!
Thanks again!
Anybody who mentions ocean waves in connection with virtual particles to a grade eight kid should be punished. That is absolute not what virtual particles are. They are mathematical terms in a particular type of perturbation theoretical expansion. There are neither real nor virtual particles in nature. Please do not lead the kids astray here. If a student asks you what a quantum is tell them the truth: a quantum is a small amount of energy. A virtual quantum is a small change in the energy levels of quantum systems.
So we are really all just interconnected vibrating waves propagating on an infinite sea of quantum fields. My cosmic hippie friend Dave would just love this lol!
Yes, in a very rudimentary manner of speaking..
Killer video. I've seen a lot of videos on this topic but you bring the healthiest level of scepticism I've seen. I kept thinking about the fact these "particles" are either purely math or energy detections.
The idea of fields of energy perturbations definitely makes sense when compared to our maths and theories but i wonder sometimes how much of this is just us fitting our theories to our observations. Had we somehow made these observations without an existing theory i wonder how different our resulting theories may have been.
It's also conceptually weird to think of all particles arising from fluctuations in a field, yet these fluctuations remain constant for years throughout space and time. Like I can fly across the world and spend 5 years abroad, come back and have plenty of the same atoms as before. Conceptually to think of the persistence required of these seemingly fickle fields/particles to persist over change in space and time is really weird and just seemingly improbable.
Sorry for the rambling, love your videos!!
Did gravitational have both nature (particle and wave) ... I think everything have both nature
Yah I also have same question
@@narendrakarkee3543 I recently studied that gravitons are part of subatomic particle with zero mass...
@@ikrishna06 existence of gravitons are not proved since we don't have proof that gravitation is a force but just result of curved space time
Good question. Many physicists think the answer will ultimately be shown to be yes, but so far there is no evidence that it is such. We don't have a quantum description of gravity.
@@bookman9897 yes
I find Arvin´s explanations so refreshing, not because I end up understanding everything, but because he is willing to say that we can´t actually see all the things we think we know. My favorite parts are when he says, "This is just what the math is telling us!" That resonates with me, since videos about physics usually state things as facts, without saying how that has been proven or detected. I always wonder if there´s a machine somewhere "seeing" a photon move like a wave.
Videos about physics rarely delve into the mathematics involved.
Love from India 😎😎
Honestly, I thought this was gonna be really goofy but it is one of the best, if not the best, explanations of quantum field theory I've seen.
This was very clearly explained and with interesting visuals too. Thank you. I actually understand! Please make more videos like this.
Hi dear Arvin ,
How standard model could be reconciled with string theory ?
Thanks
String theory is about describing the fundamental particles in terms of vibrating strings in multiple dimensions. It is probably incorrect, or at least incomplete.
The best explanation of fields and particles. Beautifully visualized.
One of the more lucid explanations I have seen. Well done.
I'm not very good with math and I always struggled with physics in school. But now I have a basic working knowledge of quantum physics, particles, relativity and the standard model, all thanks to this amazing channel. It's wayyyy more fun to understand the theory and ideas behind these things than being stuck in the math of it. Thank you!
The answer to your question is "YES" . This is the reason why!! You need to understand we live in a magnetic world, EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE IS RELATIVE TO MAGNETICS!!! The speed of light is directly proportional to the particular magnetic field it travels through!!!! E=MC2 is nothing more then a JOKE!! E=MD, (M'agnetic D'ensity),
EVERYTHING you see and feel is in our magnetic realm all tree's all plant life all human life, We are all a magnetic entity!
Those beautiful, evocative descriptions are deceptive and effectively inferior to the mathematics.
Fantastic video. I've enjoyed many of your videos and I think I enjoy each one more than the last no matter when you made them!
Sorry if this is a random question, but I don't know where else to ask lol. Is it correct to interpret the "particle" aspect of the wave-particle duality as being due to there being a quantized amount of energy contained and transferred when it is interacted with? And the wave aspect is because the energy causes a wave-like excitation in the field? I feel like I was able to have a more intuitive understanding of it when I started thinking about it this way, but I'm not sure if I'm over-simplifying or if I'm missing something.
Yes, that's a good way to think about it. Another aspect is that all interactions in QFT are local, two fields always interact at some particular point, this is why we see individual dots in our detectors and call them particles.
8:55 Is the Casimir Effect related to, or even an explanation to, gravity?
no
Not that we know of.
Love your speaking style and the visualizations. Question for you: using your one meter quantum sea example, if an energy input is not enough to achieve a two meter wave, where does the energy go? Or is energy quantized in a way that aligns perfectly with the discrete increments of the field?
Energy is transferred from one field to another. If there is not enough energy to make a wave in the field, then that energy does not get transferred, and remains in it original field.
@@ArvinAsh Thanks!
@@nemlehetkurvopica2454 Huh? What's your question?
Thank u arvin glad to know all the chapters......Awesome teaching superb👏🏻👏🏻
School physics classes should be like these - engaging, up to date, visual, meaningful, non-jargon.
To be fair classes are meant to be live, it's an interactive lecture and it's not like majority of the teachers "teach" for the sake of teaching, most just see it as a job. It's rare to see passionate ones that actually have a fun class, the world is pretty lame, nothing can be really done about that
wow, at last I've got the idea of these virtual particles, how they appear and disappear. Really good explanation, thank you!
Is my understanding correct that a camera placed next to a double slit screen will affect a photon acting either as a wave or a particle depending upon whether the camera is turned on and taking pictures? Stating the question another way, does the mere act of turning the camera off suddenly cause the photon to behave as a wave?
It isn't exactly a camera, but a device that interacts with the particle. If it is off, i.e.e no interaction, then yes, no wave collapse occurs.
@@ArvinAsh Thanks for the clarification.
@@ArvinAsh Can you give an example of "a device that interacts with the particle"? Assuming one kind of such device is a camera, how is it that the camera in the "on" position is deemed to be interacting with the particle (thereby causing a wave-collapse), whereas no such collapse occurs if the camera is in the "off" position?
Really interesting Arvin... Have you red about the magnetic tunnel in which the milky way is?? Could you publish a video with that topic?
Thanks for making things a lot clearer for me. Excellent work.
Terrific presentation of wave particle duality and explanation of virtual particles. Well done!🤗
this is such a good explanation it gave me chills
best explanation I've seen,...the visuals really help me understand despite having the comparative brain of a golden retriever, well done!
Hey Arvin, I've long wondered what "happens" to that energy that doesn't meet the quanta requirement? If I try to add 0.5 waves to the system, am I just literally unable to interact with the field or will the energy be taken somewhere else like spread throughout the system?
The energy would come from some other field. So typically, no transfer of energy occurs if it is not enough to create a particle in a new field. So this means the energy would remain in its original field instead of being transferred to the new field.
Incredible video. Youve made the most understandable explainer of quantum field theory that exists. Pardon me while i share this video with everyone in my contacts list lol
This has to be one of the best and most easily digestible explanations I've ever seen. I was glued to the screen! Thank you! Now I wonder, what exactly is energy that makes it so critical to excitations of the quantum field? (I hope I stated that correctly!)
Excitations of the quantum field is what energy is.
@@nemlehetkurvopica2454 It depends on what kind of energy you're talking about. Is it potential energy or kinetic energy? Excitations are the kinetic energy that makes to "appear" matter, now the big question is, where does this energy come from?
Maybe it isn't even a valid question, since as far as we know there may be a fixed (finite or infinite?) amount of kinetic energy that is just "playing around itself". Uncertainty principle says that energy can't stay fully and truly static, and our concept of "potential energy" may be just a practical abstraction for how a big "issolated" classical system (I preffer the term _recurrent system_ because of the way I understand this all) may evolve against other systems.
Now this is what makes me going nuts. We may say that energy is *the thing* that exists, but energy is just a mathematical abstraction we make to explain behavioural aspects of reality, so *what* is reality?
Well, we have fields, but they're also a mathematical abstraction... So reality may just be behavioural, and there may be "nothing", which seems to me extremely ilogical and counterintuitive (and I'm pretty sure that it seems the same for everyone), but how could we know? Our logic and intuition has been proved to be extremely flawled over the last decades.
But this is different, isn't it? Existence itself just can't be denied, can it? But why? Are we sure we truly understand why? And why a "behavioural existence" isn't enough? Are we completely sure that there must be something fundamental, static, solid that pervades reality? Why?
@@nemlehetkurvopica2454 but energy itself is not a thing, it is a description of the state of some behaviour.
@@nemlehetkurvopica2454 A field does not have charge, waves/particles do. So, what is charge? Charge is still a kind of behaviour.
@@nemlehetkurvopica2454 That's precissely the point. Phisics are missing something terribly fundamental (if there is anything like that).
QM is yelling that "energy" is all that exists, but energy is a mathematical abstraction for a behavioural aspect of reality.
There are energy exchanges in-between energy-made systems, fields do not exist, and "charge" is the recursive cycle of energy/motion which is sustaining a certain "material" system (which also implies the kind of potential of that system against other systems).
I'm just pointing to the same as you do, but you're the one who is biased still thinking that energy must come from something else.
*As far as we know* all reality is behavioural, so *as far as we know* there could be actually nothing "truly phisical" or "truly material" about reality.
The animation of constructively interfering waves in the quantum field ocean creating virtual particles that last for a very few seconds was a masterpiece for me... 💎💎💎
Excellent video, as always. Very interesting, informative and worthwhile video.
Great video, encouraged me to watch your videos on quantum field and learn more. I notice a pattern here. Love it!
Thank you dear Arvin. You amazing and your voice is very easy on the ears. ❤
Very well explained with great visuals. Awesome and insightful video. Thanks!
What an amazing explanation and set of visualizations. Well done Arvin! Absolutely outstanding.