This is the beginning of a quantum physics series I'm starting on the channel. In future videos we will explore the physics and mathematics behind the results of this experiment, plus much more. Please let me know if you have any requests for the quantum series!
I would like to see a comparison between the Copenhagen interpretation and pilot wave theory. I never really understood why the Copenhagen one was chosen as the accepted interpretation. Great video btw.
Joe Mccane IMO: after reading Bohm's original papers, I believe that's because the introduction of 'hidden variables' in this interpretation is merely a visual aid of sorts - it's just more stuff to keep track of, and you don't really gain anything except 'intuition'
A jolly good news. If you could keep consistently underlining what is the metaphor you're using related with in the real world (like here spin/color) that'd be real swell, for the people who kinda understand the more advanced version but still want to solidify that understanding with the more metaphoric descriptions you give (and give well). I often find it hard, switching from more advanced vulgarizers to those appealing more to beginners, to see the link between the two versions.
Hello Jade, great video! It's not directly about quantum maybe but I'd appreciate a video about Cherenkov radiation. Looking forward for new videos. Take care!
I once found a nice way to wrap my mind around the "can't know both" thing: Imagine you see a very fast car, you want to take a picture of it, to know both where it is and how fast it is going. If the car comes out blurry, you have some idea of the average speed of the car (width of the blur divided by the lens aperture time), but have some uncertainty on where exactly the car was during the shot. If the car comes out sharp, then you know exactly where it was, but with no blur, you can't know how fast it was going. You can't know both because both quantities depend on one another. This helped me *a lot*
Fulvio Carrus nice analogy, but i have to object on the very last part of your narrative. What i extrapolated out of the two alternatives was that the two quantities *_hide_* one another, so trying to somehow fit two (independent IMO!) properties in just one "snapshot" will not work.
2:45 _"The actual mechanisms of the machine don't matter at all."_ This is a point that's really hard for newcomers to accept, but needs to be made. Thank you for saying it.
How do we know this though? I know "hidden variable" theories aren't very popular among quantum physicists but I don't understand why. I've heard that someone (I don't remember the name) proved that local (as opposed to global) hidden variables couldn't be the explanation but how did he do this? How can we possibly know for sure (let alone prove) that we aren't somehow affecting particles every time we measure them, even if it seems like we aren't? I'm genuinely really curious about this and I've never gotten a decent explanation.
Ok. I had a look at the lecture you mentioned. I notice there are a few errors. 1: Electron exhibit up and down spin, just two quantities. The idea of colour and shape is derived from the orientation of the magnetic field in the box, not the electron itself. 2: you need to understand spin to get superposition. 3: Neutrons have 1/3 and 2/3 spin, not binary. 4: colour and shape 'machines' are the same thing, orientated at 90 degrees to each other. 5: the machine organises the neutrons by aligning them into Up and Down, it rotates them and so does change their orientation. 6: the mechanism does matter, there is no tiny demon inside the machine, you need to have a magnetic field in a certain orientation for the effect to work. It is completely to do with the orientation of the magnetic field. 7: The reason it is always 50%/50% is due to the wave nature of the electron. Waves go up and down in equal proportion. Therefore, it in not completely random. 8: after the 1st pause, the solution as to why 50% are 'green' and 50% are blue is because the machine reorientates the electron wave, the X, Z, X axis will obviously produce a 50% mix. 9: the machines reorientate the neutrons on the x and z axis, which is why you get the 50%/50% mix. 10: no one has ever isolated a neutron or even a photon. 11: Experiment 2 produces all 'green' neutrons, as the recombination reflects the 'round' neutrons, but not the 'square' ones. The mirror 'inverts' the wave, in the same way that Circular polarization is inverted. As only the 'circular' waves are inverted at the last step, so the result produces all 'green' neutrons. 12: When the 'round' neutrons are blocked, there is no recombination in the final mirror, so all the 'square' neutrons are now polarised in the x-axis, so when passed through the z-axis (colour box') at the end, the result is 50%/50% split. 13: The reason you can't know colour and shape at the same time is because the electron only has 1/2 spin, (neutrons only 2/3 and 1/3). As there is only one property, not 2 as you have suggested. The only difference between 'shape' and 'colour' is the orientation of the magnetic components inside the box at 90 degrees. 14: the path is not a million miles long. 16: you forgot option number 6. You can change the polarisation of the electron/neutron with a mirror, which makes logical sense of reality, once you reintroduce the proven wavelike nature of matter, and stop proposing the neutron is just a particle, like a football, which it is not. Btw, you can't place a detector on both paths, as detection is a destructive process, which is the foundation of the uncertainty principle. 17: No the neutron is not square/circular and blue/green at the same time, which are orientations of spin at 0 degrees and 90 degrees to each other. The up and down spin exist at any orientation until passed through the magnetic field. 18: I am glad you mentioned the Stern-Gerlach experiment. I think you got this idea from this lecture ocw.mit.edu/courses/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2013/43a8712da99ace660cf042c1f1371b46_MIT8_04S13_Lec01.pdf. The concept of shape and colour does not exist in the physics of the electron. It was fabricated by this guy, apparently just because he believed his students were not intelligent enough to understand the idea of quantum spin. For a clearer explanation, check out these videos: ua-cam.com/video/ZUipVyVOm-Y/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/PH1FbkLVJU4/v-deo.html btw: this is not a dig at your understanding of atomic physics, but I have noticed that this concept seems to have created a lot of confusion about the nature of electron spin. Thanks to Allan Adams, who has taken it upon himself to redesign quantum mechanical principles.
This is one of the best descriptions for the lay person of quantum superposition I have heard. If professors started their discussions about QS this way, I think a lot of people would understand it quicker and with greater easy. We are hunters by nature. A hunter, regardless of quarry, starts by looking at a general area and then focuses on areas of increasing detail until they find what they are looking for, whether an animal, berry, or a quantum entangled pair. Your approach to the topic follows that path.
Iago Silva 3 Blue 1 Brown has a similar concept to what Jade is doing with this video. She is merely taking one step further than him. I think that your idea is great, however, someone with no math or science background can begin to understand what quantum physics is about from a high level here. They can learn the math after they understand the basic concepts.
Not quite - Minute Physics, Susskind's Stanford lectures and elsewhere they talk about the same concepts using the more mundane analogy of polarizers; I don't see what Jade is doing here that's so 'special' Also, of course I had in mind the people who want to delve deeper into QM - what is not so obvious (to most physicists, anyway) is that QM should be understandable w/o recourse to its math. E.g., "wavefunction collapse" sounds mysterious and exotic, but you can explain all about it using coins or dice
Iago Silva you speak from a point of view that indicates that you have some level of college related to physics (I will also assume you are being figurative in the QM101 statement, as quantum physics and related courses are typically 400+ level courses.) You, Jade and I all agree that the basic concepts of quantum superposition requires no math. If you do have a college education on the subject, you are fortunate. The overwhelming majority of people require a basic first step into the subject. One that is colorful and interesting, so that they will want to learn more. That is what makes Jade's video, special. It presents the subject in a way that makes people think, "Hey, this stuff is fascinating and maybe I want to learn more."
This is a really interesting new format. I feel like you could use it on occasion, in addition to your regular videos, especially to make this kind of stuff more accessible to those less knowledgable in this field (e.g. myself)
I just subscribed about a week a ago and have already watched many videos some more than once. So glad I found this channel. Why didn't I find this channel sooner but better late than never.
This video follows Prof Allan's quantum mechanics course (MIT OCW) very closely. It is really beneficial for me to see this video after the lecture. It cleared all my doubts.
That first 1 minute of your video where you ask everyone watching to forget what they know and stop trying to fit the knowledge into existing moulds is probably the most genius way to start educating anyone on something new.
I think it still makes sense to say it took both paths. The reason is that if you put a detector in, then sure, you will find that it took only one path - but if you detect which one it took, it will come out 50/50 blue/green again.
Another great video, thanks! These quantum ideas have never seemed that strange to me... in my tradition, we often treat the whole world that way. It makes a lot of survival tasks easier. The harder part is keeping track of what you already know :)
I feel like at the end of these example experiments, you need a machine that tells you either the color or the shape of the neutron. The machines used in the examples are sorters, but sometimes you used them as indicators and sometimes you didn't. For example, in the experiment with the beam splitter, you use the final color sorter to show the outcome of the sorting, but the shape sorter is just used as a sorter, and its outcomes are unknown. It seems like there are assumed machines at the end of these experiments that explicitly give you a shape or a color, but these are not stated. In other words, the sorters are sometimes also being used as indicators and sometimes they are not in these examples. Just something to think about. Great video!
I learned about these experiments in highschool. I am over 35, and the spooky disturbing and charmed feelings, all at the same time, still don't go away...
Superposition is similar to a pebble dropped into water will form ripples that are not random; the waves are relative and synchronized as they radiate out from their centre source. In this theory, time has a similar geometry based on Huygens’ Principle: That says: “Every point on a wave front may be considered a source of secondary spherical 4πr² wave, which spreads out in the forward direction at the speed of light”. The light waves only move in the forward direction because we have an uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future continuously coming into existence with the exchange of light photon ∆E=hf energy forming new spherical waves of probability. The wave particle nature of light and matter in the form of electrons is forming an interactive process or what I like to call a blank canvas that we can interact with. Light photon ∆E=hf energy is continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons. Kinetic energy is the energy of what is actually ‘happening’. The dynamic geometry of this process forms an uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π probabilistic future continuously unfolding relative to the electron probability cloud of the atoms and the wavelength of the light.
7:53 very important! Green color state "IS" ONE case of superposition of the 2 shape states (for example, +) And the blue color state is THE ANOTHER one (-). And viceversa, the shape states are superpositions/combinations of color states
I've never taken a physics course (I'm a musician) but for some reason I'm curious about math and science. I like to watch your channel, PBS space-time and Fermi Labs. This is the one that explained superposition in a way I can wrap my head around. Well done, thanks!
Quantum physics series!!! I'm so excited! This has become my favorite channel on UA-cam and I'm ecstatic every time I see an update. Keep up the awesome!
10:37 As Bohr would say, the color and shape are not properties of the "object", but the phenomena resulted from the "interaction" between object and measurement apparatus
I really like how your illustration at 4:38 shows the first green blob going through the shape machine and becoming colorless...BUT wouldn't it have been more accurate to show the final 50% green and 50% blue neutrons as back to blob shapes?
I find superposition best to understand by considering that the singular neutron made a "projection" along both routes simultaneously, following all paths at once before collapsing all variations into one singular particle at the detector. The presence of a wall in one path then collapses the projection early. This does not occur when the neutron meets it as technically it hasn't moved, rather it exists simultaneously at all possible points on both lines, and if one path is obstructed, the neutron path collapses into one singular line on the path it may take. This means it registers as a line, not a particle, and theoretically never moves, yet still arrives at the destination of the next input. The detectors therefore register the valid "spline" of the neutron due to it interacting, however the obstructed spline collapses instantaneously, preventing interaction and thus detection. That's how I understand it, anyways, even if that's not exactly how it works, god, physics and alcohol is a great combo
For the quiz @ 7:01, I first thought that in the #1 exp, we only had circles and we got 50-50 split. In the #2 exp, we had both squares and circles and got 100 for green. So, probably the shapes are doing something. Therefore, if again we are going to have only one shape then it will give 50-50.
I think the most intuitive analogy is with Fourier series (sums of waves). If you sum many "wave properties shape" you could get a peak of the property "colour" and viceversa. So for this two related properties, you can't get a peak in both at the same time. You need many colour waves to get a define shape, and many shape waves to get a colour define. (look for Fourier series on wikipedia can't draw here) Good video!
6 років тому+4
I just love your videos! Please keep them coming ❤️
The wide angle lens really emphasizes your excitement about the subject. When you lean toward the camera you really fill the whole shot. I don’t know if this was an accident or intentional it really works.
I had watched the first MIT lecture. So I got all the votes correct. And also I know the binary properties are spins. I know that the two properties are conjugate. That is enough to know about superposition. Thanks!
I watced this video twice back to back, then had my dinner and then, read Stern-Gerlach experiment, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and again watched this video, thus I found that it's like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which says it is impossible to devise an experiment that can measure simultaneously two complementary variables to arbitrary accuracy. I really appreciate your efforts mam (since I didn't know your name), but this time it really became so tough to understand for me. Again great work as you always do. Good luck.
So when the path is open, the shape and colour do not matter as is it decided by randomness. Randomness is only applied when interacting with different surfaces. So surfaces determine outcome and are therefore the path changer aka 'superficial state'. Change the interaction > change the outcome. The missing link is 'interaction with' , not found in or determined by randomnes. So to solve that problem , it's simply a if this than that trial untill the unknown is found.
Very interesting video. You also looked very good in this video. The only critic i have is that the lines in the mirror shape in one of the figures logicly should have been turned 90°, since it should let particles from the left pass and not from the bottom. Thus would make the figure fit better with the explenation. Again, good video and i hope you make more of them.
In my data universe cloud computing storage device, the model has been revealed countless times, but the most difficult to control is the superposition of the quantum state of the data cloud, revealing the dimensional psychedelic space of its antimatter quadrant shape, which will surprise you. The conclusion is that the overall field must conform to its cosmic string singularity effect! Only revealed three times in three years! Or one-time superposition of quantum states of spectral utility of different chaotic color systems.
This is a good overview of quantum uncertainty but I think to really understand what a superposition is it's important to talk about the double-slit experiment. I've never really associated Stern-Gerlach with superposition. Another interesting topic is the nature of polarization and the insights it gives on quantum identity (specifically that it doesn't exist.)
Step 1: Get detectors that change the particles in no way, just measure them. Step 2: interacting only with these detectors, the particles get changed in a deterministic fashion. Step 3: Thus the detectors are changing the particles, which makes sense since measurement always has influence. Doesn't matter if you put maxwell's demon into the box, either the particles *or the particles + observer system* will still be influenced because 1 bit of information got extracted from the particle. EG, the particle that came out round isn't the same particle that went in round. The particle that went in was not luminally entangled to your knowledge *about* it's property, and the particle that came out changed to one that was.
Wow i'm back after some months and i see your channel exploded! Congrats on 33k subs :D. So awesome to see that here and there it actualy happens, but with your content is was just a quastion of when. Now i almost forgot the funny thing i wanted to write as i saw your title and wanted to ansver the question in it: You are Super on a Quantum level and i stand to my position ;)
Hello all, hello Jade, first time posting here (actually first time posting on UA-cam, period!). This video reminded me a lot of the uncertainty principle. If you definitely determine the shape of the neutron by sorting it, then color stays undetermined, so the uncertainty principle may look something like: Δshape x Δcolor ≥ some constant (obviously something equivalent to Plank's constant would apply to this case to match the units!). I dug in a little deeper about this on wikipedia (sorry!). In the Stern-Gerlach experiment, the color and shape properties become spins along the Z and X axis, and blue/green or square/circle states are spin up/down or left/right. I didn't dig in deep enough (yet), but I think the uncertainty principle in this case would be Δ(Z-axis spin) x Δ(X-axis spin) ≥ some constant. The Δ (delta) terms could as well be σ (sigma) terms, or standard deviations, representing how precise we can measure the spins. I'm not sure about the "some constant" term (feels weird to quote myself) yet. Since Plank's constant, and thus spins, have angular momentum units (like in the familiar position-momentum relation, ΔxΔp ≥ ħ/2), multiplying two spin values would actually give angular momentum squared. And if Plank's costant is actually there, the result would be a very small number indeed! An interesting comparison between the Stern-Gerlach and the double slit experiment is that, in the double slit experiment, the position property can take a huge (not sure yet if I should say infinite) range of values, whereas in the Stern-Gerlach, there are only two values (or binary, like Jade pointed out) for each axis (another reason why I'm still not sure about the "some constant" term). What I liked most about Jade's video is that she goes a step further and shows us not just cases when one path is blocked, but also when both paths are open. So the paths are made to converge just before the neutrons enter the second color sorter, and somehow the color property manages to stay green throughout the trip, while the shape property is allowed to vary between square and circle for each neutron, like it's in a superposition of both shapes just before it's measured. I think that's when we really need to stop thinking of neutrons (or neutral atoms in the Stern-Gerlach case) as particles and start thinking of them as waves, and adding a brick wall to one of the paths actually affects the wave somehow, even at millions of miles away! that's really spooky! I just had a thought, going back to the double slit experiment, does anybody know how far would the slits have to be so as not to cause an interference pattern (I think I'll look into this too)? Well Jade, you definitely know how to arouse people's interests, very much looking forward to your next videos!
There is no such thing as wave-particle duality. There is only a quantum field that can interacts exclusively with quantized energy, momentum and angular momentum exchanges.
Very good explanation!!! I liked much the use of Mach-Zehnder, instead the abuse of double-slit experiment. But I think it would be better if it was explained with "real" examples, instead "color and shape". For anyone that already knows about it, a "real" example translates into "vertical and horizontal polarization of light" and "polarizating beam splitters"
An interferometer tells you as little about quantum mechanics as the double slit. Planck's constant doesn't show up and you aren't doing multi-quantum correlations, either.
Congrats for the video and the channel! I came up with it right after watching Allan Adams's introduction to QM lecture. While watching his, I thought it would be nicer to replace his hardness/softness property with a shape property. So I think you nailed it changing that part, making it even easier to see the point. I wonder if you have any video or know of a video that explains how the real boxes work. And what the real neutrons or electrons properties are?? Thank you for sharing such interesting knowledge in such an easy to understand way! keep it up!
If I could, I would love to subscribe to this channel 10 million times. Loved all the explanations in this channel so much that I have recommended this channel to everyone whom I know.
ughhh!!! still had some confusion but that's not you, it's my fault of lack of enough knowledge on quantum mechanics, your explanation is so good and i haven't even confused a bit cuz "i kept an open mind", i love your videos
Excellent explanation. Now that I (and I guess most of the viewers) understand the concept of superposition, It would be nice to see a video with you explaining the real experiment. I also fully understand when you said that we need to re-wire our brain to make quantum mechanics intuitive. I speak Portuguese as my original language, when I learnt English I had to do that re-wiring, because verbs and nouns are in different positions in the phrase in comparison to Portuguese. Nice video! :)
I have memories from my youth of deriving spherical harmonics from the spherical coordinate form of the Schrödinger equation from first principles. (More specifically, the spherical form of the Laplacian operator in the Schrödinger equation with the inverse square potential.) By the time morning arrived I had gotten all three p-orbitals. By the time of my afternoon class I had the d-orbitals. I let the f-orbitals go. I got a “B” out of that class, but I was confident that the words “easy” and “quantum mechanics” don’t belong in the same air space!
The real question is, I understand super position... it's both square and circle at the same time. However why is the split always 50% 50%, I always thought super position meant it could be in either state, and once you measure it condenses and chooses one or the other. However if were talking about 100 particles, 50 will be square and 50 circle. Almost like they can talk with each other.... and the even wierder thing is how the particle knows were measuring it, I've seen other videos on particle physics and superposition and they said this is the same with all particles, neutrons, protons, photons, electrons, and everything else. And we've also used many different techniques to measure their states like you said, lasers, magnets, etc... it's very unusual that the particles know we're measuring them and what we're measuring. Because if you measure a particle and it's square as long as you dont measure the color I'm pretty sure it stays square no matter how many times you measure the shape it'll always be square. But once you measure color and shape again it could be square or circle. This is why I believe there is a higher being like God because that seems a lot like intelligent design(almost like a programmers code).
4 years later... it's always about 50-50 because that's how probability works. It's not exactly 50-50, but it's pretty damn close, just like flipping a coin. "Measurement" as a concept also really just deals with the particles interacting with the world in a way that forces them to choose a state. It doesn't have anything to do with consciousness or actually measuring them quantitatively. For example, in the Stern-Gerlach experiment, the particles' are "measured" as soon as they hit the detector. It doesn't matter if there's anyone there to see it or not. When it bumps into the detector, the world is forcing the particle to choose where it's at, in a manner of speaking.
It explained well but i was thinking you would explain everything about it or at least most of it. Like explain why its in superposition and whats wave function. It would be awesome to have second video explaining it in more detail. But still great work and keep it up.
Look at the UA-cam video "Double Slit Experiment" by Todd Grigsby. It uses an interferometer to show that light waves can bounce off another. This applies to the double slit experiment thus the title.
Great video!!! I love superposition. There was once a meme about "USB superposition." And it claimed that, until the USB was successfully plugged in, the "blocking part" was on both sides of the plug lol. At about 8:30, you called the neutrons electrons. Just wanted to give you a heads up as not to confuse anyone.
thanks alot for clearing it up. i watched this example, before. but only the half. never really explaining the solution. and it was bugging me up ever since.
It’s because ultimate reality is about possibilities and these possibilities are based on the observer. That’s what collapses the wave or “chooses” the possibility that is expressed.
Hi, I've been wondering about whether A.I. used in humanoid robotics will end up being able to count the way we do? This is related to a VSauce video from 4 years ago called: - "1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35..." In that video it is explained how we can immediately count 3 to 5 objects without even thinking about it. Yet, toddlers go through a phase where they count differently to us and young toddlers. Also mentioned is logarithmic perception. I don't know how to articulate this (wish I had written it down when I orignally thought of it) - but I am sure I am not the first to think about it. Though I am pretty sure it involves more recent understanding (if I have this right?). I should probably read Daniel Dennett? Goes back to thinking about free will and old determinism/indeterminism questions. And throwing in newer concepts such as entropy of information, chaos theory and unpredictability, that overturn old ways of looking at the question of free will. I.e. I believe thinking about things in a deterministic/indeterministic way is an emergent way of looking at things that obscures the real processes going on underneath (a bit like looking at things in a newtonian way is an emergent reality of the quantum mechanics behind it). I am essentially wondering if the reason why we can count 3 to 5 objects straight away. But have to think about a number of objects more than that (and loose accuracy at the same time). Is not because of our limitations (though it would be connected). Or because that's the way we have evolved that best suits our survival (though again connected to that). But because of the limitations of information itself? I am wondering if any number greater than 3 to 5 is really what we think it is? - Could it be that somehow entropy is involved (I am scratching my head and being a bit vague - sorry)? Something anyway, that would mean even an A.I. would have to adopt our senses if you like - regardless of evolution? Or even physical reality? Purely a constraint caused by (the entropy?) of using information? Sorry. Thanks :P
This is the beginning of a quantum physics series I'm starting on the channel. In future videos we will explore the physics and mathematics behind the results of this experiment, plus much more. Please let me know if you have any requests for the quantum series!
I would like to see a comparison between the Copenhagen interpretation and pilot wave theory.
I never really understood why the Copenhagen one was chosen as the accepted interpretation.
Great video btw.
Joe Mccane IMO: after reading Bohm's original papers, I believe that's because the introduction of 'hidden variables' in this interpretation is merely a visual aid of sorts - it's just more stuff to keep track of, and you don't really gain anything except 'intuition'
A jolly good news. If you could keep consistently underlining what is the metaphor you're using related with in the real world (like here spin/color) that'd be real swell, for the people who kinda understand the more advanced version but still want to solidify that understanding with the more metaphoric descriptions you give (and give well). I often find it hard, switching from more advanced vulgarizers to those appealing more to beginners, to see the link between the two versions.
Hello Jade, great video!
It's not directly about quantum maybe but I'd appreciate a video about Cherenkov radiation.
Looking forward for new videos. Take care!
Great video, i love physics and chemestry and i would like to learn more about molecular orbitals theorty, which books doy you recommend me?
I once found a nice way to wrap my mind around the "can't know both" thing:
Imagine you see a very fast car, you want to take a picture of it, to know both where it is and how fast it is going.
If the car comes out blurry, you have some idea of the average speed of the car (width of the blur divided by the lens aperture time), but have some uncertainty on where exactly the car was during the shot.
If the car comes out sharp, then you know exactly where it was, but with no blur, you can't know how fast it was going.
You can't know both because both quantities depend on one another. This helped me *a lot*
Holy sht that just clicked for!!! Thank you!!!
Fulvio Carrus nice analogy, but i have to object on the very last part of your narrative. What i extrapolated out of the two alternatives was that the two quantities *_hide_* one another, so trying to somehow fit two (independent IMO!) properties in just one "snapshot" will not work.
Well damn thanks so very much dude for this clear explaination
if you have 3 cameras,the frist see the shape,the second see the speed, and the third see another shape you cant explain that
omg i finally understand it now thanks to ur comment thanks so much for sharing!!
General Physics I: Classical Mechanics
General Physics II: Electromagnetism
Modern Physics III: Forget what you have learnt and start from square one
lol pretty much
or from the circle one?
Yep exactly and that’s why I’m here.
I'm back revisiting this a year (and a couple months) later and it's still my favorite video of yours. Well done 😊
It's been a year, come back and enjoy the quality
2:45 _"The actual mechanisms of the machine don't matter at all."_ This is a point that's really hard for newcomers to accept, but needs to be made. Thank you for saying it.
The Science Asylum your videos are great asylum and pls talk a bit more about astrology
How do we know this though? I know "hidden variable" theories aren't very popular among quantum physicists but I don't understand why. I've heard that someone (I don't remember the name) proved that local (as opposed to global) hidden variables couldn't be the explanation but how did he do this? How can we possibly know for sure (let alone prove) that we aren't somehow affecting particles every time we measure them, even if it seems like we aren't? I'm genuinely really curious about this and I've never gotten a decent explanation.
Mikayla Eckel Cifrese : This is a good explanation of the disproving of hidden variables:
ua-cam.com/video/ZuvK-od647c/v-deo.html
it's just lasers and mirrors, but it doesn't matter at all.
It doesn't? It's just because if you check a green particle's shape you tamper with it and causes it to become randomly green or blue, no?
I feel like I'm being pranked by the universe.
How so?
I think you meant by God!
Ok. I had a look at the lecture you mentioned. I notice there are a few errors. 1: Electron exhibit up and down spin, just two quantities. The idea of colour and shape is derived from the orientation of the magnetic field in the box, not the electron itself. 2: you need to understand spin to get superposition. 3: Neutrons have 1/3 and 2/3 spin, not binary. 4: colour and shape 'machines' are the same thing, orientated at 90 degrees to each other. 5: the machine organises the neutrons by aligning them into Up and Down, it rotates them and so does change their orientation. 6: the mechanism does matter, there is no tiny demon inside the machine, you need to have a magnetic field in a certain orientation for the effect to work. It is completely to do with the orientation of the magnetic field. 7: The reason it is always 50%/50% is due to the wave nature of the electron. Waves go up and down in equal proportion. Therefore, it in not completely random. 8: after the 1st pause, the solution as to why 50% are 'green' and 50% are blue is because the machine reorientates the electron wave, the X, Z, X axis will obviously produce a 50% mix. 9: the machines reorientate the neutrons on the x and z axis, which is why you get the 50%/50% mix. 10: no one has ever isolated a neutron or even a photon. 11: Experiment 2 produces all 'green' neutrons, as the recombination reflects the 'round' neutrons, but not the 'square' ones. The mirror 'inverts' the wave, in the same way that Circular polarization is inverted. As only the 'circular' waves are inverted at the last step, so the result produces all 'green' neutrons. 12: When the 'round' neutrons are blocked, there is no recombination in the final mirror, so all the 'square' neutrons are now polarised in the x-axis, so when passed through the z-axis (colour box') at the end, the result is 50%/50% split. 13: The reason you can't know colour and shape at the same time is because the electron only has 1/2 spin, (neutrons only 2/3 and 1/3). As there is only one property, not 2 as you have suggested. The only difference between 'shape' and 'colour' is the orientation of the magnetic components inside the box at 90 degrees. 14: the path is not a million miles long. 16: you forgot option number 6. You can change the polarisation of the electron/neutron with a mirror, which makes logical sense of reality, once you reintroduce the proven wavelike nature of matter, and stop proposing the neutron is just a particle, like a football, which it is not. Btw, you can't place a detector on both paths, as detection is a destructive process, which is the foundation of the uncertainty principle. 17: No the neutron is not square/circular and blue/green at the same time, which are orientations of spin at 0 degrees and 90 degrees to each other. The up and down spin exist at any orientation until passed through the magnetic field. 18: I am glad you mentioned the Stern-Gerlach experiment.
I think you got this idea from this lecture ocw.mit.edu/courses/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2013/43a8712da99ace660cf042c1f1371b46_MIT8_04S13_Lec01.pdf. The concept of shape and colour does not exist in the physics of the electron. It was fabricated by this guy, apparently just because he believed his students were not intelligent enough to understand the idea of quantum spin.
For a clearer explanation, check out these videos:
ua-cam.com/video/ZUipVyVOm-Y/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/PH1FbkLVJU4/v-deo.html
btw: this is not a dig at your understanding of atomic physics, but I have noticed that this concept seems to have created a lot of confusion about the nature of electron spin. Thanks to Allan Adams, who has taken it upon himself to redesign quantum mechanical principles.
This is one of the best descriptions for the lay person of quantum superposition I have heard. If professors started their discussions about QS this way, I think a lot of people would understand it quicker and with greater easy.
We are hunters by nature. A hunter, regardless of quarry, starts by looking at a general area and then focuses on areas of increasing detail until they find what they are looking for, whether an animal, berry, or a quantum entangled pair. Your approach to the topic follows that path.
equesdeventusoccasus Or they could add Linear Algebra in the curriculum - a class I took _before_ QM 101. Trust me: it _really_ helps
Iago Silva 3 Blue 1 Brown has a similar concept to what Jade is doing with this video. She is merely taking one step further than him.
I think that your idea is great, however, someone with no math or science background can begin to understand what quantum physics is about from a high level here. They can learn the math after they understand the basic concepts.
Not quite - Minute Physics, Susskind's Stanford lectures and elsewhere they talk about the same concepts using the more mundane analogy of polarizers; I don't see what Jade is doing here that's so 'special'
Also, of course I had in mind the people who want to delve deeper into QM - what is not so obvious (to most physicists, anyway) is that QM should be understandable w/o recourse to its math. E.g., "wavefunction collapse" sounds mysterious and exotic, but you can explain all about it using coins or dice
Iago Silva you speak from a point of view that indicates that you have some level of college related to physics (I will also assume you are being figurative in the QM101 statement, as quantum physics and related courses are typically 400+ level courses.)
You, Jade and I all agree that the basic concepts of quantum superposition requires no math. If you do have a college education on the subject, you are fortunate. The overwhelming majority of people require a basic first step into the subject. One that is colorful and interesting, so that they will want to learn more.
That is what makes Jade's video, special. It presents the subject in a way that makes people think, "Hey, this stuff is fascinating and maybe I want to learn more."
Even more confusing is a 8:30, the Neutrons became Electrons. Then at 8:46 they became Neutrons again.
Heyu Deuphus She probably meant to say that that's how it happens in the real world XD
Well there was only a 50% chance she was going to say neutrons again anyway.
Yeah I was going to say the same too
@Deuphus, hahaha! You were very focused to notice this
This is a really interesting new format. I feel like you could use it on occasion, in addition to your regular videos, especially to make this kind of stuff more accessible to those less knowledgable in this field (e.g. myself)
I saw the MIT lecture like 3 times, to understand your animations just made my concepts more concrete
I just subscribed about a week a ago and have already watched many videos some more than once. So glad I found this channel. Why didn't I find this channel sooner but better late than never.
I am really pleased for you clarifying that it's not that we can't know both, it's that the information, in the most literal sense, does not exist.
Although I have heard this type of explanation before, this is the best presentation of it I have seen. Thank you for posting it.
This video follows Prof Allan's quantum mechanics course (MIT OCW) very closely. It is really beneficial for me to see this video after the lecture. It cleared all my doubts.
That first 1 minute of your video where you ask everyone watching to forget what they know and stop trying to fit the knowledge into existing moulds is probably the most genius way to start educating anyone on something new.
I am from India
and this video is mind blowing
I am amazed 🤯🤯
One of the best shows to understand Quantam physics ...
I think it still makes sense to say it took both paths. The reason is that if you put a detector in, then sure, you will find that it took only one path - but if you detect which one it took, it will come out 50/50 blue/green again.
Please could you make a video on quantum computer and why is it way better than regular computer. I like how easy you make the topics.
I'll add it to the list :)
Thank you. I really appreciate it.
Another great video, thanks! These quantum ideas have never seemed that strange to me... in my tradition, we often treat the whole world that way. It makes a lot of survival tasks easier. The harder part is keeping track of what you already know :)
I feel like at the end of these example experiments, you need a machine that tells you either the color or the shape of the neutron. The machines used in the examples are sorters, but sometimes you used them as indicators and sometimes you didn't. For example, in the experiment with the beam splitter, you use the final color sorter to show the outcome of the sorting, but the shape sorter is just used as a sorter, and its outcomes are unknown. It seems like there are assumed machines at the end of these experiments that explicitly give you a shape or a color, but these are not stated. In other words, the sorters are sometimes also being used as indicators and sometimes they are not in these examples. Just something to think about. Great video!
I learned about these experiments in highschool. I am over 35, and the spooky disturbing and charmed feelings, all at the same time, still don't go away...
Superposition is similar to a pebble dropped into water will form ripples that are not random; the waves are relative and synchronized as they radiate out from their centre source. In this theory, time has a similar geometry based on Huygens’ Principle: That says: “Every point on a wave front may be considered a source of secondary spherical 4πr² wave, which spreads out in the forward direction at the speed of light”. The light waves only move in the forward direction because we have an uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future continuously coming into existence with the exchange of light photon ∆E=hf energy forming new spherical waves of probability. The wave particle nature of light and matter in the form of electrons is forming an interactive process or what I like to call a blank canvas that we can interact with. Light photon ∆E=hf energy is continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons. Kinetic energy is the energy of what is actually ‘happening’. The dynamic geometry of this process forms an uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π probabilistic future continuously unfolding relative to the electron probability cloud of the atoms and the wavelength of the light.
7:53 very important! Green color state "IS" ONE case of superposition of the 2 shape states (for example, +) And the blue color state is THE ANOTHER one (-). And viceversa, the shape states are superpositions/combinations of color states
Love it how it is explained, thanks jade..I am not into computer science but I work in the technology infrastructure line.
This video is the best way to explain Quantum Superposition, thanks a lot
I've never taken a physics course (I'm a musician) but for some reason I'm curious about math and science. I like to watch your channel, PBS space-time and Fermi Labs. This is the one that explained superposition in a way I can wrap my head around. Well done, thanks!
Quantum physics series!!! I'm so excited! This has become my favorite channel on UA-cam and I'm ecstatic every time I see an update. Keep up the awesome!
aww really?! that means so much n_n
I love this video!! I think you did a great job of explaining superposition!
10:37 As Bohr would say, the color and shape are not properties of the "object", but the phenomena resulted from the "interaction" between object and measurement apparatus
Come for the physics, stay for the jade. You're really good at this.
I really like how your illustration at 4:38 shows the first green blob going through the shape machine and becoming colorless...BUT wouldn't it have been more accurate to show the final 50% green and 50% blue neutrons as back to blob shapes?
I find superposition best to understand by considering that the singular neutron made a "projection" along both routes simultaneously, following all paths at once before collapsing all variations into one singular particle at the detector. The presence of a wall in one path then collapses the projection early. This does not occur when the neutron meets it as technically it hasn't moved, rather it exists simultaneously at all possible points on both lines, and if one path is obstructed, the neutron path collapses into one singular line on the path it may take. This means it registers as a line, not a particle, and theoretically never moves, yet still arrives at the destination of the next input. The detectors therefore register the valid "spline" of the neutron due to it interacting, however the obstructed spline collapses instantaneously, preventing interaction and thus detection. That's how I understand it, anyways, even if that's not exactly how it works, god, physics and alcohol is a great combo
For the quiz @ 7:01, I first thought that in the #1 exp, we only had circles and we got 50-50 split.
In the #2 exp, we had both squares and circles and got 100 for green.
So, probably the shapes are doing something.
Therefore, if again we are going to have only one shape then it will give 50-50.
My head was spinning but your advise in the end actually helps
Thanks
I think the most intuitive analogy is with Fourier series (sums of waves). If you sum many "wave properties shape" you could get a peak of the property "colour" and viceversa. So for this two related properties, you can't get a peak in both at the same time. You need many colour waves to get a define shape, and many shape waves to get a colour define. (look for Fourier series on wikipedia can't draw here) Good video!
I just love your videos! Please keep them coming ❤️
Here to support an awesome creator.
Similar to observing particles in the double slit experiment. 👌🏼✨
Yes very similar I just feel like the double slit has been talked about so much! But it is a fascinating experiment.
so what the hell...right!!!!
The wide angle lens really emphasizes your excitement about the subject. When you lean toward the camera you really fill the whole shot. I don’t know if this was an accident or intentional it really works.
Thanks for the explanation .... Really appreciate the techniques and methodology to teach
“Anything is possible” a few seconds later, “no curvy turquoise squares allowed” makes sense
Great video Jade! I think the poll that took place at the side really kept me attentive throughout the video.
I had watched the first MIT lecture. So I got all the votes correct. And also I know the binary properties are spins. I know that the two properties are conjugate. That is enough to know about superposition. Thanks!
I watced this video twice back to back, then had my dinner and then, read Stern-Gerlach experiment, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and again watched this video, thus I found that it's like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which says it is impossible to devise an experiment that can measure simultaneously two complementary variables to arbitrary accuracy. I really appreciate your efforts mam (since I didn't know your name), but this time it really became so tough to understand for me. Again great work as you always do. Good luck.
Yes it is very closely linked with the uncertainty principle. And my name is Jade :)
Hey Jade I watched your video "Quantum bomb tester" that explains quantum superposition very easily.
Right. You should always keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.
So when the path is open, the shape and colour do not matter as is it decided by randomness. Randomness is only applied when interacting with different surfaces.
So surfaces determine outcome and are therefore the path changer aka 'superficial state'.
Change the interaction > change the outcome.
The missing link is 'interaction with' , not found in or determined by randomnes.
So to solve that problem , it's simply a if this than that trial untill the unknown is found.
This was an interesting way to explain it! Never heard this version, great job! Looking forward to the rest of the series!
Quantum physics was originated from Hinduism.
Proof : See the quotes of neils bohr, schrodinger, Oppenheimer, Einstein, Nicola tesla, etc..
Very interesting video. You also looked very good in this video. The only critic i have is that the lines in the mirror shape in one of the figures logicly should have been turned 90°, since it should let particles from the left pass and not from the bottom. Thus would make the figure fit better with the explenation.
Again, good video and i hope you make more of them.
In my data universe cloud computing storage device, the model has been revealed countless times, but the most difficult to control is the superposition of the quantum state of the data cloud, revealing the dimensional psychedelic space of its antimatter quadrant shape, which will surprise you. The conclusion is that the overall field must conform to its cosmic string singularity effect! Only revealed three times in three years! Or one-time superposition of quantum states of spectral utility of different chaotic color systems.
You make quantum physics so understandable and I’m so interested ! Thank you!
This is a good overview of quantum uncertainty but I think to really understand what a superposition is it's important to talk about the double-slit experiment. I've never really associated Stern-Gerlach with superposition. Another interesting topic is the nature of polarization and the insights it gives on quantum identity (specifically that it doesn't exist.)
Good morning to Up and Atom and Brilliant, thank you so much for your Quantum Superposition teaching.
Step 1: Get detectors that change the particles in no way, just measure them.
Step 2: interacting only with these detectors, the particles get changed in a deterministic fashion.
Step 3: Thus the detectors are changing the particles, which makes sense since measurement always has influence.
Doesn't matter if you put maxwell's demon into the box, either the particles *or the particles + observer system* will still be influenced because 1 bit of information got extracted from the particle.
EG, the particle that came out round isn't the same particle that went in round. The particle that went in was not luminally entangled to your knowledge *about* it's property, and the particle that came out changed to one that was.
Wow i'm back after some months and i see your channel exploded! Congrats on 33k subs :D. So awesome to see that here and there it actualy happens, but with your content is was just a quastion of when. Now i almost forgot the funny thing i wanted to write as i saw your title and wanted to ansver the question in it: You are Super on a Quantum level and i stand to my position ;)
Hello all, hello Jade, first time posting here (actually first time posting on UA-cam, period!).
This video reminded me a lot of the uncertainty principle. If you definitely determine the shape of the neutron by sorting it, then color stays undetermined, so the uncertainty principle may look something like: Δshape x Δcolor ≥ some constant (obviously something equivalent to Plank's constant would apply to this case to match the units!).
I dug in a little deeper about this on wikipedia (sorry!). In the Stern-Gerlach experiment, the color and shape properties become spins along the Z and X axis, and blue/green or square/circle states are spin up/down or left/right. I didn't dig in deep enough (yet), but I think the uncertainty principle in this case would be Δ(Z-axis spin) x Δ(X-axis spin) ≥ some constant. The Δ (delta) terms could as well be σ (sigma) terms, or standard deviations, representing how precise we can measure the spins.
I'm not sure about the "some constant" term (feels weird to quote myself) yet. Since Plank's constant, and thus spins, have angular momentum units (like in the familiar position-momentum relation, ΔxΔp ≥ ħ/2), multiplying two spin values would actually give angular momentum squared. And if Plank's costant is actually there, the result would be a very small number indeed!
An interesting comparison between the Stern-Gerlach and the double slit experiment is that, in the double slit experiment, the position property can take a huge (not sure yet if I should say infinite) range of values, whereas in the Stern-Gerlach, there are only two values (or binary, like Jade pointed out) for each axis (another reason why I'm still not sure about the "some constant" term).
What I liked most about Jade's video is that she goes a step further and shows us not just cases when one path is blocked, but also when both paths are open. So the paths are made to converge just before the neutrons enter the second color sorter, and somehow the color property manages to stay green throughout the trip, while the shape property is allowed to vary between square and circle for each neutron, like it's in a superposition of both shapes just before it's measured. I think that's when we really need to stop thinking of neutrons (or neutral atoms in the Stern-Gerlach case) as particles and start thinking of them as waves, and adding a brick wall to one of the paths actually affects the wave somehow, even at millions of miles away! that's really spooky!
I just had a thought, going back to the double slit experiment, does anybody know how far would the slits have to be so as not to cause an interference pattern (I think I'll look into this too)?
Well Jade, you definitely know how to arouse people's interests, very much looking forward to your next videos!
As an someone who studies physics as a hobby and a passion, I'm happy I correct about the neutron machine.
9:45 wave-particle duality!!! Although "something" goes both ways, ONLY ONE detector "clicks"
There is no such thing as wave-particle duality. There is only a quantum field that can interacts exclusively with quantized energy, momentum and angular momentum exchanges.
Very good explanation!!! I liked much the use of Mach-Zehnder, instead the abuse of double-slit experiment. But I think it would be better if it was explained with "real" examples, instead "color and shape". For anyone that already knows about it, a "real" example translates into "vertical and horizontal polarization of light" and "polarizating beam splitters"
An interferometer tells you as little about quantum mechanics as the double slit. Planck's constant doesn't show up and you aren't doing multi-quantum correlations, either.
I'm so thrilled to be learning from you. You are so smart and nice.
An excellent teacher. Thank you.
Did they take into account the quantum foam? Do you have a link to the construct of the colour and shape box so we can confirm your assumption?
Congrats for the video and the channel! I came up with it right after watching Allan Adams's introduction to QM lecture. While watching his, I thought it would be nicer to replace his hardness/softness property with a shape property. So I think you nailed it changing that part, making it even easier to see the point.
I wonder if you have any video or know of a video that explains how the real boxes work. And what the real neutrons or electrons properties are?? Thank you for sharing such interesting knowledge in such an easy to understand way! keep it up!
I remember this one.
Quantum Physics I, Lecture 1, by Allan Adams on MIT OCW.
I freak out the first time I look at it.
Quantum physics was originated from Hinduism.
Proof : See the quotes of neils bohr, schrodinger, Oppenheimer, Einstein, Nicola tesla, etc..
Once again, your explanations are just perfect...
Is just me or do the 4 popular courses on Brilliant never change?
I loved the way your eyes glowed with bewilderment after you said Superposition at 10:26. 😊
This was really very enlightening. Thank you!
If I could, I would love to subscribe to this channel 10 million times.
Loved all the explanations in this channel so much that I have recommended this channel to everyone whom I know.
*Amazing explanation. I would like to see more videos......*
no
Thank you
Yes, that's the same thing I figured out that you couldn't know the shape & the color at the same time. I'm starting to understand a bit better now!
Loved this explanation thanks
ughhh!!! still had some confusion but that's not you, it's my fault of lack of enough knowledge on quantum mechanics, your explanation is so good and i haven't even confused a bit cuz "i kept an open mind", i love your videos
Great explanation!
Great video and smartly produced. Well done!
😭😭😭 so gooood! Finally, I understand what does it mean by superposition.
Excellent explanation. Now that I (and I guess most of the viewers) understand the concept of superposition, It would be nice to see a video with you explaining the real experiment. I also fully understand when you said that we need to re-wire our brain to make quantum mechanics intuitive. I speak Portuguese as my original language, when I learnt English I had to do that re-wiring, because verbs and nouns are in different positions in the phrase in comparison to Portuguese. Nice video! :)
I have memories from my youth of deriving spherical harmonics from the spherical coordinate form of the Schrödinger equation from first principles. (More specifically, the spherical form of the Laplacian operator in the Schrödinger equation with the inverse square potential.) By the time morning arrived I had gotten all three p-orbitals. By the time of my afternoon class I had the d-orbitals. I let the f-orbitals go. I got a “B” out of that class, but I was confident that the words “easy” and “quantum mechanics” don’t belong in the same air space!
This is not even physics. It's just 18th century math. The spherical harmonics were introduced by Laplace in 1782.
The real question is, I understand super position... it's both square and circle at the same time. However why is the split always 50% 50%, I always thought super position meant it could be in either state, and once you measure it condenses and chooses one or the other. However if were talking about 100 particles, 50 will be square and 50 circle. Almost like they can talk with each other.... and the even wierder thing is how the particle knows were measuring it, I've seen other videos on particle physics and superposition and they said this is the same with all particles, neutrons, protons, photons, electrons, and everything else. And we've also used many different techniques to measure their states like you said, lasers, magnets, etc... it's very unusual that the particles know we're measuring them and what we're measuring. Because if you measure a particle and it's square as long as you dont measure the color I'm pretty sure it stays square no matter how many times you measure the shape it'll always be square. But once you measure color and shape again it could be square or circle. This is why I believe there is a higher being like God because that seems a lot like intelligent design(almost like a programmers code).
4 years later... it's always about 50-50 because that's how probability works. It's not exactly 50-50, but it's pretty damn close, just like flipping a coin. "Measurement" as a concept also really just deals with the particles interacting with the world in a way that forces them to choose a state. It doesn't have anything to do with consciousness or actually measuring them quantitatively. For example, in the Stern-Gerlach experiment, the particles' are "measured" as soon as they hit the detector. It doesn't matter if there's anyone there to see it or not. When it bumps into the detector, the world is forcing the particle to choose where it's at, in a manner of speaking.
Finally understood thanks to you Maam 🔥
Allan Adams is really really cool! I like him too! He's very smart and has a scientist's soul.
That was great! Terrific Job! Thank You again. Keep them coming.I,😄love it.
Thank you for solving my doubt
It explained well but i was thinking you would explain everything about it or at least most of it. Like explain why its in superposition and whats wave function. It would be awesome to have second video explaining it in more detail.
But still great work and keep it up.
Haxk20 She said it is the beginning of a series...
If it could be explained in a single video, it wouldn’t be infamous about its complexity...
Haxk20 I will go more in-depth in future videos!
Look at the UA-cam video "Double Slit Experiment" by Todd Grigsby.
It uses an interferometer to show that light waves can bounce off another.
This applies to the double slit experiment thus the title.
Great video!!! I love superposition. There was once a meme about "USB superposition." And it claimed that, until the USB was successfully plugged in, the "blocking part" was on both sides of the plug lol.
At about 8:30, you called the neutrons electrons. Just wanted to give you a heads up as not to confuse anyone.
Haha I love that meme!
This is crazyyy...Fam everyone need to know about this like ... wow
So far, every explanation of superposition brings to mind the story of the Three Blind Men and the Elephant.
Your my favorite quantum physics teacher
thanks alot for clearing it up. i watched this example, before. but only the half. never really explaining the solution. and it was bugging me up ever since.
It’s because ultimate reality is about possibilities and these possibilities are based on the observer.
That’s what collapses the wave or “chooses” the possibility that is expressed.
Excellent explanation..
The best way to explain superposition!
Quantum physics was originated from Hinduism.
Proof : See the quotes of neils bohr, schrodinger, Oppenheimer, Einstein, Nicola tesla, etc..
Fantastic; informative. Thank you for a great presentation.
It is like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle where you can't find the exact velocity and position of a particle simultaneously
Hi, I've been wondering about whether A.I. used in humanoid robotics will end up being able to count the way we do? This is related to a VSauce video from 4 years ago called: -
"1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35..."
In that video it is explained how we can immediately count 3 to 5 objects without even thinking about it. Yet, toddlers go through a phase where they count differently to us and young toddlers. Also mentioned is logarithmic perception.
I don't know how to articulate this (wish I had written it down when I orignally thought of it) - but I am sure I am not the first to think about it. Though I am pretty sure it involves more recent understanding (if I have this right?). I should probably read Daniel Dennett?
Goes back to thinking about free will and old determinism/indeterminism questions. And throwing in newer concepts such as entropy of information, chaos theory and unpredictability, that overturn old ways of looking at the question of free will. I.e. I believe thinking about things in a deterministic/indeterministic way is an emergent way of looking at things that obscures the real processes going on underneath (a bit like looking at things in a newtonian way is an emergent reality of the quantum mechanics behind it).
I am essentially wondering if the reason why we can count 3 to 5 objects straight away. But have to think about a number of objects more than that (and loose accuracy at the same time). Is not because of our limitations (though it would be connected). Or because that's the way we have evolved that best suits our survival (though again connected to that). But because of the limitations of information itself?
I am wondering if any number greater than 3 to 5 is really what we think it is? - Could it be that somehow entropy is involved (I am scratching my head and being a bit vague - sorry)? Something anyway, that would mean even an A.I. would have to adopt our senses if you like - regardless of evolution? Or even physical reality? Purely a constraint caused by (the entropy?) of using information?
Sorry. Thanks :P
Imagine a video game character discovering the code behind the game. This is basically humans discovering quantum physics.
you make nice videos, keep making more videos. thanks for explaining such topics.