A great professor. I never met such a good professor before. His explanation is clear and systematic. If I have met him before, I might do a Phd in physics.
Louis de Broglie's proposal in 1924 introduced the concept of wave-particle duality, suggesting that particles such as electrons exhibit both wave-like and particle-like properties. This groundbreaking idea fundamentally transformed our understanding of the nature of matter and light, laying the groundwork for the development of quantum mechanics. De Broglie's wavelength equation, λ = h/p (where λ is the wavelength, h is Planck's constant, and p is momentum), captures the essence of this duality, implying that all matter has an associated wavelength. This concept elegantly bridges classical and quantum physics, leading to profound implications for our understanding of atomic and subatomic processes. His work has not only deepened our comprehension of fundamental physics but has also paved the way for numerous technological advancements, from the development of electron microscopes to innovations in quantum computing. De Broglie's insights remind us of the intricate interplay between the observable world and the underlying quantum reality, challenging our classical intuitions and enriching the fabric of modern science.
@len39f 0 seconds ago I don't know if it's just me listening to these lectures over and over, but his explanation here is so clear now and illuminating. Very appreciative of his consumate knowledge and exposition.
Dr. Roger Penrose has suggested instead of trying to create a particle called the "graviton" to explain gravity, why not try to describe subatomic particles in terms of spatial curvature, as in the twist in a piece of real thread. What if we add one extra spatial dimension to the "Twistor Theory" of Sir Roger Penrose? It can be "chiral" by having either Right-hand or Left-hand twist. It can be "Quantized", based on the number of twist cycles. If Physicists describe electrons as point particles with no volume, where is the mass of the particle? Can one extra spatial dimension produce a geometric explanation of the 1/2 spin of electrons? The following is an extension of the old Kaluza-Klein theory. Can a twisted 3D 4D soliton containing one extra spatial dimension help solve some of the current problems in Particle Physics? What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century? Is the best explanation of the current data a form of “Twistor Theory” first proposed by Sir Roger Penrose during 1967? During recent years Dr. Peter Woit has explored Twistor Theory as a possible solution to help explain the current Standard Model. Has the concept of the “Aether” been resurrected from the dead and relabeled as the “Higgs Field”? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. Are these the “Flux Tubes” being described by many Physicists today? When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton. The term “entanglement” in this case is analogous to three twisted ropes being wrapped around each other in a way which causes all of the ropes to move if someone pulls one of the ropes. Does the phenomenon of “Asymptotic Freedom” provide evidence that this concept is the correct interpretation of the experimental data now available? Can the phenomenon of "Supercoiling" help explain the "Multiple Generations" of particles in the Standard Model? The conversion of twist to writhe cycles is well understood in the structure of DNA molecules. Can the conversion of twist to writhe cycles and vice-versa help explain "neutrino oscillations"? Within this model neutrinos are a small, twisted torus produced when a tube becomes overtwisted and breaks producing the small, closed loop of twisted tube (neutrino), and a twisted tube open on each end, which is shorter than the original. (Beta Decay) Within this subatomic model gravity is produced by a very small higher dimensional curvature imbalance within atoms, which causes all atoms to be attracted to all other atoms. This extremely weak attraction reveals the very small scale of the curvature imbalance. This produces the curvature of spacetime on a larger scale like the solar system which is required to counterbalance this small imbalance in the individual atoms.
Hola, que signfica que las ondas de materia sean probabilisticas? No creo que signifique que son una mera funcion. Entonces en que campo de la fisica se propagan? Teniendo en cuenta que las ondas mecanicas se propagan en la materia, las electromagneticas en el campo electro magnetico, y estas? Las ondas materiales en que campo se propagan?
@@jacobvandijk6525 wow didn't expect to see a reply haha. Well, I really wouldn't mind people mispronouncing my name at all. Just read it however it seems fit in whatever language we're currently speaking. My point was that sometimes people will get too caught up in expecting others to pronounce certain sounds correctly while overlooking the more subtle ones. But hey, if you wanna learn it, I think that's great :)
That's right, jacob. Prof. Luis Alvarez (of Los Alamos and other fame) noted it many years ago, explicitly, in his self-titled memoir. In French "de" is pronounced "duh" so it'd be "duh BROY". This professor does such an outstanding job and is such a good teacher, no way i'm criticizing him over this, but once you know how the name is pronounced it just seems odd to hear it pronounced "de broh glee."
9:44 I think there's an error. The intensity pattern drawn by him on the screen is that of single slit diffraction and not double slit interference. But he's correct with the dotted explanation.
No, a single split gives no stripe pattern at all: there's only one single wide line where the wave hits the closest to the split and continuous fading from this central line (more like a Gauss curve).
Square of the wave function in Schrodinger equation determines the probability of finding the particle at some point. For example, If you plot a graph of the radial probability function of the broader wave function squared multiplied to 4•pi•r²•dr vs radius r of an atom, you get the radial probability distribution of electrons in the atom by checking number of nodes
how can this equation be true if the derivation relies on photons being massless? Is there a reason or is it just an assumption that massive particles obey the same equation as photons?
The current best estimate for the mass of the photon is that it is less than 1e-18eV/c^2. That is completely negligible for any of the physics we are doing at the moment because it corresponds to a wavelength on the order of 1e12m or about a billion km. Since we currently can't build antennas that are nearly that long, a direct test for a breakdown of Maxwell's equations at the level is not possible at the moment.
Oh my, matter is waves? This man if nothing else is trying to be honest. But then again, he says and writes @5:09 “waves of what” his response to his own question is “probability amplitudes”. Now consider this, what is waving? Can a probability amplitude make a wave? The answer is no. Only physical things wave (even if their substance is unknown) and an idea which is what a "probability amplitude" is, can’t wave. So this professor abandons logic @5:09 and leaves me back to square one, which is, what is reality.
I think you misunderstand when you think the particles "are" waves of probability amplitudes.The point of the wave particle duality is that they merely exhibit wave "properties" (certain properties that are also observed in the physical waves you mention), so he is not saying they are one in the same. Also you make an assumption that only macro physical things can wave (even though these are also fundamentally made of particles), but examples of this assumption being false are gravitational waves and waves in the electromagnetic field (which is light).
@@stephanpotgieter3236 With all due respect your opinion and belief adds to my understanding. At what mass does a particle lose its ability to exhibit wave properties, and why? Waves can pass through two slits simultaneously but particles cannot. To claim that particles merely exhibit wave properties means what, that they are not always waves? As to gravity or light making waves one must assume that something physical is waving, which today, as an idea is not acceptable. So, when this professor writes “waves of what” and answers “probability amplitudes” he is being unclear. What he means by “probability” is, if it is in existence (real, reality) and by the word “amplitude” its solidity (degree of being real). With all due respect he is teaching others to be vague and to ignore the missing piece of the biggest puzzle facing physics today, which is: What is reality?
Yes this MIT professor is confused. Schroedinger relied on de Broglie by trying to ignore the fact that de Broglie was critiquing Einstein's relativity. So now de Broglie's "pilot wave" has been proven to be real (not just a mathematical construct). Yakir Aharonov: "There is a non-local exchange that depends on the modular variable....I'm saying that I have now an intuitive picture to understand interference by saying that when a particle moves through two slits, it always goes through one slit or the other, but it knows which other slit, the slit through which it did not go, whether it is open or not, because there are nonlocal equations of motion." Finally making sense of the double-slit experiment (2017, Aharonov): The nonlocal equations of motion in the Heisenberg picture thus allow us to consider a particle going through only one of the slits, but it nevertheless has nonlocal information regarding the other slit.... The Heisenberg picture, however, offers a different explanation for the loss of interference that is not in the language of collapse: if one of the slits is closed by the experimenter, a nonlocal exchange of modular momentum with the particle occurs....Alternatively, in the Heisenberg picture, the particle has both a definite location and a nonlocal modular momentum that can “sense” the presence of the other slit and therefore, create interference." as John Bell states: "Is it not clear from the diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the particle is directed by the wave?" Grant Sanderson, math/science Stanford: "Unlike the doppler radar case where the ambiguity arose because waves were being used to measure an object with a definite distance and speed; what we're seeing here is the particle IS the wave - so the spread out over space and over momentum is not some artifact of imperfect measurement techniques; It's a spread fundamental to what the particle is: analogous to how a musical note being spread out over time is fundamental to what it even means to be a musical note." Grant Sanderson, Math/science degree, Stanford University
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 I really appreciate you taking the time to explain your understanding in this matter. I have nothing against the Louis de Broglie theory, also I am not taken aback by your statement that the pilot wave theory has been proven because you have the freedom to believe it is proven to your own satisfaction. Like earth’s gravity not affecting our moon but just affecting space which affects the moon, likewise an electron interacting with this pilot wave, a quantum 3-D vibration (3-D+ time?). This just transfers the particle from being the wave to reacting to a wave. This pilot wave theory just adds another layer of complexity. I would not like to be the person arguing that an electron can sense a second slit, or in a practical sense the existence of a second slit is physically influencing pilot waves by its existence. The question remains, what is waving which creates reality.
@@sedevacantist1 I just did an upload vid on this - with more details - you can watch in half speed or go to my blog - thanks ua-cam.com/video/1m38Asft-fw/v-deo.html&feature=emb_logo
See this link ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2016/lecture-notes/ Or, search "8.04 MIT" on Google and click the first link then go to the notes section.
De Broglie's thesis was so outragous that his examiners were not sure what to make of it. They asked Einstein for his opinion. Einstein loved the idea and recommended that he be granted the PhD. He got his PhD
three ( 3 ) formulas is ok seven ( 7 ) formulas is missing drei ( 3 ) formula sind vertig sieben formula sind fehlen üç ( 3 ) formül tamam yedi ( 7 ) formül eksik
The required text for the course is: Griffiths, David J. Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004. ISBN: 9780131118928. See ocw.mit.edu/8-04S16 for more readings and materials. Best wishes on your studies!
Yes, a photon is both a wave and a particle. But it is also two more things: A word ("photon"), and a squiggle of ink on paper (or chalk on board). And of course, it is all four things at once, though at different times it is more of one than the others. "Reductionism" (the Greek definition) says that the entire ontological nature of photons (indeed of all the universe) can be learned via their names and features / attributes / categories, expressible in words or ink. It's a big claim. Yes, John Bell proved that there are no hidden variables in Schrodinger's equation. That is, no hidden features /attributes / categories of particles expressible in ink jots. (Remember: no categories, no math). But he could not rule out other factors that have *no* categories or features. For indeed, it is quite possible that below the Planck length, categories lose all meaning. See the proton, whose size is both bigger and smaller than its components, depending on how you measure it. Or can there be parts of the universe that have no features at? Or both have them and do not have them? Because where there are no categories, both "both" and "neither" have no meaning? There very well could, but of course we humans (whose cortexes require categories, via the Vernon Mountcastle algorithm) could not discuss them.
Trying to say that an alternating current in a straight wire that creates a varying electromagnetic field that propogates outward is a photon seems ridiculous. Calling the Xray frequency electromagnetic waves created by the free electron laser photons seems equally ridiculous.
This professor's voice makes me feel at home. The lectures are good. No stress.
اببب
from one era to another era of quantum mechanics ,,this professor should get a Nobel prize for teaching
The history is important for an understanding of the subject...for me at least.
Excellent teacher
Such great lessons by such great Professor.
A great professor. I never met such a good professor before. His explanation is clear and systematic. If I have met him before, I might do a Phd in physics.
Brilliant presentation.
Louis de Broglie's proposal in 1924 introduced the concept of wave-particle duality, suggesting that particles such as electrons exhibit both wave-like and particle-like properties. This groundbreaking idea fundamentally transformed our understanding of the nature of matter and light, laying the groundwork for the development of quantum mechanics. De Broglie's wavelength equation, λ = h/p (where λ is the wavelength, h is Planck's constant, and p is momentum), captures the essence of this duality, implying that all matter has an associated wavelength. This concept elegantly bridges classical and quantum physics, leading to profound implications for our understanding of atomic and subatomic processes. His work has not only deepened our comprehension of fundamental physics but has also paved the way for numerous technological advancements, from the development of electron microscopes to innovations in quantum computing. De Broglie's insights remind us of the intricate interplay between the observable world and the underlying quantum reality, challenging our classical intuitions and enriching the fabric of modern science.
What a BEAUTIFUL STORY!!! And beautifully told as well.
I wish I was student at MIT right now. I'm a high schooler right now. I love learning.
excellent presentation. Profound insights.
felling lucky to see these lecture..
@len39f
0 seconds ago
I don't know if it's just me listening to these lectures over and over, but his explanation here is so clear now and illuminating. Very appreciative of his consumate knowledge and exposition.
No idea how I landed here but I’m paying attention like I’m taking a midterm soon
Dr. Roger Penrose has suggested instead of trying to create a particle called the "graviton" to explain gravity, why not try to describe subatomic particles in terms of spatial curvature, as in the twist in a piece of real thread.
What if we add one extra spatial dimension to the "Twistor Theory" of Sir Roger Penrose? It can be "chiral" by having either Right-hand or Left-hand twist. It can be "Quantized", based on the number of twist cycles.
If Physicists describe electrons as point particles with no volume, where is the mass of the particle?
Can one extra spatial dimension produce a geometric explanation of the 1/2 spin of electrons? The following is an extension of the old Kaluza-Klein theory. Can a twisted 3D 4D soliton containing one extra spatial dimension help solve some of the current problems in Particle Physics?
What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century? Is the best explanation of the current data a form of “Twistor Theory” first proposed by Sir Roger Penrose during 1967? During recent years Dr. Peter Woit has explored Twistor Theory as a possible solution to help explain the current Standard Model.
Has the concept of the “Aether” been resurrected from the dead and relabeled as the “Higgs Field”?
In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit).
Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature.
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. Are these the “Flux Tubes” being described by many Physicists today? When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton. The term “entanglement” in this case is analogous to three twisted ropes being wrapped around each other in a way which causes all of the ropes to move if someone pulls one of the ropes. Does the phenomenon of “Asymptotic Freedom” provide evidence that this concept is the correct interpretation of the experimental data now available? Can the phenomenon of "Supercoiling" help explain the "Multiple Generations" of particles in the Standard Model? The conversion of twist to writhe cycles is well understood in the structure of DNA molecules. Can the conversion of twist to writhe cycles and vice-versa help explain "neutrino oscillations"? Within this model neutrinos are a small, twisted torus produced when a tube becomes overtwisted and breaks producing the small, closed loop of twisted tube (neutrino), and a twisted tube open on each end, which is shorter than the original. (Beta Decay)
Within this subatomic model gravity is produced by a very small higher dimensional curvature imbalance within atoms, which causes all atoms to be attracted to all other atoms. This extremely weak attraction reveals the very small scale of the curvature imbalance. This produces the curvature of spacetime on a larger scale like the solar system which is required to counterbalance this small imbalance in the individual atoms.
I wanna write on that board
If one reads physics in depth, de Broglie waves WILL come up.
Expuse este tema en mis primeros años de carrera y recuerdo que entenderlo la primera ves fue una cosa reveladora
Hola, que signfica que las ondas de materia sean probabilisticas? No creo que signifique que son una mera funcion. Entonces en que campo de la fisica se propagan? Teniendo en cuenta que las ondas mecanicas se propagan en la materia, las electromagneticas en el campo electro magnetico, y estas? Las ondas materiales en que campo se propagan?
@@fascistalien No se, un saludo
The correct pronunciation of the French name "De Broglie" is: DE BROY.
It's almost like 'the boy', but with a rolling r ;-) Try Google-Translate!
Even if you try pronouncing it correctly, you'll probably still get it wrong anyway, so why bother
@@ArgentavisMagnificens Because you might want your name to be pronounced correctly too. MonacoFerry, right? ;-)
@@jacobvandijk6525 wow didn't expect to see a reply haha. Well, I really wouldn't mind people mispronouncing my name at all. Just read it however it seems fit in whatever language we're currently speaking. My point was that sometimes people will get too caught up in expecting others to pronounce certain sounds correctly while overlooking the more subtle ones. But hey, if you wanna learn it, I think that's great :)
@@ArgentavisMagnificens That's the spirit, man. Do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt someone else (but sometimes that's not easy).
That's right, jacob. Prof. Luis Alvarez (of Los Alamos and other fame) noted it many years ago, explicitly, in his self-titled memoir.
In French "de" is pronounced "duh" so it'd be "duh BROY".
This professor does such an outstanding job and is such a good teacher, no way i'm criticizing him over this, but once you know how the name is pronounced it just seems odd to hear it pronounced "de broh glee."
If de broglie said that before Einstein explanation to photo electric effect
(that energy of light concentrate at small region called photon)
9:44 I think there's an error. The intensity pattern drawn by him on the screen is that of single slit diffraction and not double slit interference. But he's correct with the dotted explanation.
No, a single split gives no stripe pattern at all: there's only one single wide line where the wave hits the closest to the split and continuous fading from this central line (more like a Gauss curve).
No, check again? Pure interference will not have peaks of reducing amplitude. All maximas will be of the same intensity.
@@ananth1994 I believe that's an ideal situation. In practice, this is exactly what 2 slit interference looks like.
Ah, I see. I'll try it out sometime. :)
I am so amused by his 'A~ssociate'
All waves.
"De broccoli".
Cmon man. "De-broy"
Does it work that way..need symmetry?
Squares are probabilities.
So a square represents the probability of ? finding..?.
Wave ---->particle ...no
Particle---> wave..yes?
I'm pure physical.....leaning to that..
Square of the wave function in Schrodinger equation determines the probability of finding the particle at some point. For example, If you plot a graph of the radial probability function of the broader wave function squared multiplied to 4•pi•r²•dr vs radius r of an atom, you get the radial probability distribution of electrons in the atom by checking number of nodes
This was just confirmed 👍
It's moving at c; the fastest possible speed in the known universe.
The wave is a generalized movement map...
?
WOW ❤
Bravo😁
I just wanna make you know that if you arrived until this point, I really admire you
What happens when a particle's wavelength reaches to a plank length?
check your question ...what you are saying
The particle resonates with itself to create black holes everywhere in the universe and we're all doomed.
how can this equation be true if the derivation relies on photons being massless? Is there a reason or is it just an assumption that massive particles obey the same equation as photons?
The current best estimate for the mass of the photon is that it is less than 1e-18eV/c^2. That is completely negligible for any of the physics we are doing at the moment because it corresponds to a wavelength on the order of 1e12m or about a billion km. Since we currently can't build antennas that are nearly that long, a direct test for a breakdown of Maxwell's equations at the level is not possible at the moment.
Oh my, matter is waves? This man if nothing else is trying to be honest. But then again, he says and writes @5:09 “waves of what” his response to his own question is “probability amplitudes”. Now consider this, what is waving? Can a probability amplitude make a wave? The answer is no. Only physical things wave (even if their substance is unknown) and an idea which is what a "probability amplitude" is, can’t wave. So this professor abandons logic @5:09 and leaves me back to square one, which is, what is reality.
I think you misunderstand when you think the particles "are" waves of probability amplitudes.The point of the wave particle duality is that they merely exhibit wave "properties" (certain properties that are also observed in the physical waves you mention), so he is not saying they are one in the same. Also you make an assumption that only macro physical things can wave (even though these are also fundamentally made of particles), but examples of this assumption being false are gravitational waves and waves in the electromagnetic field (which is light).
@@stephanpotgieter3236 With all due respect your opinion and belief adds to my understanding. At what mass does a particle lose its ability to exhibit wave properties, and why? Waves can pass through two slits simultaneously but particles cannot. To claim that particles merely exhibit wave properties means what, that they are not always waves? As to gravity or light making waves one must assume that something physical is waving, which today, as an idea is not acceptable.
So, when this professor writes “waves of what” and answers “probability amplitudes” he is being unclear. What he means by “probability” is, if it is in existence (real, reality) and by the word “amplitude” its solidity (degree of being real). With all due respect he is teaching others to be vague and to ignore the missing piece of the biggest puzzle facing physics today, which is: What is reality?
Yes this MIT professor is confused. Schroedinger relied on de Broglie by trying to ignore the fact that de Broglie was critiquing Einstein's relativity. So now de Broglie's "pilot wave" has been proven to be real (not just a mathematical construct). Yakir Aharonov: "There is a non-local exchange that depends on the modular variable....I'm saying that I have now an intuitive picture to understand interference by saying that when a particle moves through two slits, it always goes through one slit or the other, but it knows which other slit, the slit through which it did not go, whether it is open or not, because there are nonlocal equations of motion." Finally making sense of the double-slit experiment (2017, Aharonov): The nonlocal equations of motion in the Heisenberg picture thus allow us to consider a particle going through only one of the slits, but it nevertheless has nonlocal information regarding the other slit.... The Heisenberg picture, however, offers a different explanation for the loss of interference that is not in the language of collapse: if one of the slits is closed by the experimenter, a nonlocal exchange of modular momentum with the particle occurs....Alternatively, in the Heisenberg picture, the particle has both a definite location and a nonlocal modular momentum that can “sense” the presence of the other slit and therefore, create interference." as John Bell states: "Is it not clear from the diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the particle is directed by the wave?"
Grant Sanderson, math/science Stanford: "Unlike the doppler radar case where the ambiguity arose because waves were being used to measure an object with a definite distance and speed; what we're seeing here is the particle IS the wave - so the spread out over space and over momentum is not some artifact of imperfect measurement techniques; It's a spread fundamental to what the particle is: analogous to how a musical note being spread out over time is fundamental to what it even means to be a musical note." Grant Sanderson, Math/science degree, Stanford University
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 I really appreciate you taking the time to explain your understanding in this matter. I have nothing against the Louis de Broglie theory, also I am not taken aback by your statement that the pilot wave theory has been proven because you have the freedom to believe it is proven to your own satisfaction.
Like earth’s gravity not affecting our moon but just affecting space which affects the moon, likewise an electron interacting with this pilot wave, a quantum 3-D vibration (3-D+ time?). This just transfers the particle from being the wave to reacting to a wave. This pilot wave theory just adds another layer of complexity. I would not like to be the person arguing that an electron can sense a second slit, or in a practical sense the existence of a second slit is physically influencing pilot waves by its existence. The question remains, what is waving which creates reality.
@@sedevacantist1 I just did an upload vid on this - with more details - you can watch in half speed or go to my blog - thanks ua-cam.com/video/1m38Asft-fw/v-deo.html&feature=emb_logo
Sir, here you told about some links and notes that you'll send in website.... can i get those please????
See this link
ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2016/lecture-notes/
Or, search "8.04 MIT" on Google and click the first link then go to the notes section.
De Broglie's thesis was so outragous that his examiners were not sure what to make of it. They asked Einstein for his opinion. Einstein loved the idea and recommended that he be granted the PhD. He got his PhD
He got more than that. He was awarded a Nobel prize in 1929.
Yes!!! I also used to wonder on this, as this was during his PhD!!!!
three ( 3 ) formulas is ok seven ( 7 ) formulas is missing
drei ( 3 ) formula sind vertig sieben formula sind fehlen
üç ( 3 ) formül tamam yedi ( 7 ) formül eksik
probablity can be percieved as pressure distribution.
What is his text book?
The required text for the course is: Griffiths, David J. Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004. ISBN: 9780131118928. See ocw.mit.edu/8-04S16 for more readings and materials. Best wishes on your studies!
Yes, a photon is both a wave and a particle. But it is also two more things: A word ("photon"), and a squiggle of ink on paper (or chalk on board). And of course, it is all four things at once, though at different times it is more of one than the others. "Reductionism" (the Greek definition) says that the entire ontological nature of photons (indeed of all the universe) can be learned via their names and features / attributes / categories, expressible in words or ink. It's a big claim. Yes, John Bell proved that there are no hidden variables in Schrodinger's equation. That is, no hidden features /attributes / categories of particles expressible in ink jots. (Remember: no categories, no math). But he could not rule out other factors that have *no* categories or features. For indeed, it is quite possible that below the Planck length, categories lose all meaning. See the proton, whose size is both bigger and smaller than its components, depending on how you measure it. Or can there be parts of the universe that have no features at? Or both have them and do not have them? Because where there are no categories, both "both" and "neither" have no meaning? There very well could, but of course we humans (whose cortexes require categories, via the Vernon Mountcastle algorithm) could not discuss them.
that s believable
De Broglie is pronounced "da broye".
Finally somebody pronounces his name right
This is actually the wrong pronunciation, the correct pronunciation in French is closer to 'de Broy'.
@pandakso3365: I assume you are joking.
Trying to say that an alternating current in a straight wire that creates a varying electromagnetic field that propogates outward is a photon seems ridiculous. Calling the Xray frequency electromagnetic waves created by the free electron laser photons seems equally ridiculous.
you know not - please read: nsb.wikidot.com/pl-9-8-2-1
Particles such thing don't exist
طلاب السادس وينكم
De brog ly 🤨
de Broglie is pronounced 'de Broy'.
'de Brog-ly' just hurts my ears.
Russian 🇷🇺
?