Quantum Wave Functions: What's Actually Waving?

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 13 чер 2024
  • The most mysterious aspect of quantum mechanics is the wave function. What does it have to do with probability and statistics? Let's find out. Also, check out Brilliant for 20%: brilliant.org/ScienceAsylum
    ________________________________
    VIDEO ANNOTATIONS/CARDS
    Photons, Entanglement, and the Quantum Eraser:
    • Photons, Entanglement,...
    Where Does Light Come From?
    • Where Does Light Come ...
    Is Math the Language of the Universe?
    • Is Math the Language o...
    ________________________________
    RELATED UA-cam VIDEOS
    Eugene on Quantum Wave Functions:
    • Quantum Wave Function ...
    ________________________________
    SUPPORT THE SCIENCE ASYLUM
    Patreon:
    / scienceasylum
    Advanced Theoretical Physics (Paperback):
    www.lulu.com/shop/nick-lucid/a...
    Advanced Theoretical Physics (eBook):
    gumroad.com/l/ubSc
    Merchandise:
    shop.spreadshirt.com/scienceas...
    ________________________________
    HUGE THANK YOU TO THESE PATRONS
    Warden of the Asylum:
    YDT
    Asylum Counselors:
    Matthew O'Connor
    Asylum Orderlies:
    Daniel Bahr, William Morton, LT MarshMan
    Einsteinium Crazies:
    Albert B. Cannon, Wacky, Ken Davis, Ilya Yashin, Eoin O'Sullivan
    Plutonium Crazies:
    JKLMN Anderson, Al Davis, Kevin MacLean
    Platinum Crazies:
    Stephen Blinn, Fletch, Felipe Cruz, Eugene Boone, Vittorio Monaco, Mikayla Eckel Cifrese
    ________________________________
    OTHER SOURCES
    quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph1...
    physics.stackexchange.com/que...
    physics.stackexchange.com/que...
    forum.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/Member...
    ________________________________
    LINKS TO COMMENTS
    Drift Velocity:
    • How Special Relativity...
    • How Special Relativity...
    • How Special Relativity...
    ________________________________
    IMAGE CREDITS
    Max Born:
    commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
    Boxxy:
    • FOAR EVERYWUN FRUM BOXXY
    #Quantum #QuantumMechanics #Probability

КОМЕНТАРІ • 2,2 тис.

  • @newperve
    @newperve 4 роки тому +549

    Taking the quantum brick road.
    "Do I turn right or left here?"
    "Yes."

    • @chinkeehaw9527
      @chinkeehaw9527 4 роки тому +20

      Michael Price
      This is a technically correct answer. The actual question that shows the weirdness of quantum mechanics is:
      "Did you turn left and right?"
      "Yes."

    • @donwald3436
      @donwald3436 4 роки тому +10

      Same answer if you ask a computer scientist.

    • @sphakamisozondi
      @sphakamisozondi 4 роки тому +10

      It depends, do you have a Heseinberg license? Lol.

    • @justmehere_
      @justmehere_ 4 роки тому +5

      wow never noticed that meme is a superposition but yes it is

    • @tiny_toilet
      @tiny_toilet 4 роки тому +1

      @@donwald3436 Computer scientist does both and tells you which one you did....unless there was a loop, and he blows his stack instead...unless Win95, in which case, BSOD.

  • @teefkay2
    @teefkay2 4 роки тому +835

    _“The events are probabilistic. The probabilities are deterministic.“_

    • @ScienceAsylum
      @ScienceAsylum  4 роки тому +172

      Oh, I like that! Where is that from?

    • @teefkay2
      @teefkay2 4 роки тому +145

      The Science Asylum My old QM professor from college. 1974.

    • @ScienceAsylum
      @ScienceAsylum  4 роки тому +306

      I'm stealing it.

    • @Ortorin
      @Ortorin 4 роки тому +76

      In more lay-terms: What happens to a quantum particle is completely up to probability; it might be here or there, it might be going this fast or this slow. That probability is set in stone, which means we can tell what the probability is if we measure.
      We can always tell what a quantum particle might be doing, we can never predict what it will actually do. (Kinda like a crazy relative. You know what they CAN do, you never know what they WILL do.)

    • @StanleyKowalski.
      @StanleyKowalski. 4 роки тому +8

      probability of a event of a wave to occur at sea surface is 1, but to know exactly when and where is deterministic. not sure of that example fits the above statement

  • @Lucky10279
    @Lucky10279 3 роки тому +318

    A side note for those interested in the math: We don't use sine and cosine just because "they look wavy." We use them because there's a piece of mathematical machinery called the Fourier transform which let's us write _any_ periodic (aka wave) function as the sum of sine and cosine functions. It's incredibly convenient to be able to represent _any_ possible wave function in terms of just two relatively simple functions, so that's why we use them. 3blue1brown did a video explaining how the Fourier transform works for anyone who wants to know the details: ua-cam.com/video/spUNpyF58BY/v-deo.html

    • @cedmelancon
      @cedmelancon 2 роки тому +4

      Discrete Fourier transformations in signal processing has to be the hardest maths I’ve had to do in university. Typically I tend to be able to make a mental image of what I’m doing in maths and make my own way of understanding it, but my mind couldn’t make sense of these, I had to stupidly learn these by heart.

    • @ankitaaarya
      @ankitaaarya 2 роки тому

      @@cedmelancon that totally sucks.
      what learning by heart means?

    • @rustycherkas8229
      @rustycherkas8229 2 роки тому +7

      @@ankitaaarya
      "Learn by heart" is an English 'idiom' that means "rote learning"...
      It's like navigating in a city in a foreign country where you cannot read ("understand") street signs, but learn to get around "mechanically" from memory.
      That's your fish feed for the day. (A reference to another English idiom that begins: "Give a man a fish; you feed him for...")
      The "fishing lesson for your lifetime" gift is to point out to you that you are connected to the World Wide Web, and can search out answers to questions like this for yourself...
      Happy fishing!! :-)

    • @timseguine2
      @timseguine2 2 роки тому +5

      A side-side note for those who are really interested: Sine and cosine may be particularly nice functions with this property, but there are an infinite number of alternative bases that can look arbitrarily weird which all have an analog to the fourier transform.
      Picking sine and cosine is exactly analogous to the choice of basis in finite dimensional vector spaces, that is to say entirely arbitrary and without consequences. So to be perfectly correct, we use sine and cosine entirely because we like sine and cosine. For some people that might be because "they look wavy".

    • @NotAGoodUsername360
      @NotAGoodUsername360 2 роки тому +3

      It can also be explained by the fact that all waves can be simplified into an infinite series of right triangles, in the same way a line is an infinite series of points, hence the sudden appearance of trigonometry.

  • @sanchezzz69420
    @sanchezzz69420 4 роки тому +57

    your skills on teaching are the most outstanding qualities a person can have.

  • @txorimorea3869
    @txorimorea3869 4 роки тому +484

    Descartes is at fault here, he was the one who coined "imaginary numbers" as a derogatory term. Gauss knew better and named them lateral numbers.

    • @ScienceAsylum
      @ScienceAsylum  4 роки тому +197

      Yeah, I mean, technically speaking, all numbers are imaginary... but these are the names they have now. We're stuck.

    • @Bodyknock
      @Bodyknock 4 роки тому +124

      Which goes to show, people who haven't taken a class about them and think complex numbers are a hoax are putting Descartes before the course.
      ... I'll show myself out....

    • @NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself
      @NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself 4 роки тому +14

      How "real" are real numbers, anyway?

    • @NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself
      @NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself 4 роки тому +6

      Descartes also had that pesky duality problem. Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia asked him some good questions about it.

    • @channelnamechannel
      @channelnamechannel 4 роки тому +7

      @@ScienceAsylum natural numbers are real. the others... i'd say not...

  • @digitalduck
    @digitalduck 4 роки тому +432

    Skinny rectangles = Calculus by stealth. Nice job Nick :)

    • @NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself
      @NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself 4 роки тому +20

      Archimedes was pulling that trick thousands of years ago.

    • @william41017
      @william41017 4 роки тому +15

      I read that this is an old concept, known as infinitesimals, mathematicians just didn't like it very much because it wasn't very rigorous.

    • @anarchistsspit4483
      @anarchistsspit4483 4 роки тому +2

      Skinny rectangle infinitecimals are beginners beliefs. Calculas outgrown a lot from this now a days.

    • @hybmnzz2658
      @hybmnzz2658 3 роки тому +7

      @@william41017 not true. Calculus was informal for more than a century. Cauchy, Weierstrass, and others made it rigorous when they needed to but the smartest minds often cheat a little.

    • @gordonlawrence1448
      @gordonlawrence1448 3 роки тому +1

      You have to do the "skinny boxes" method for mathematical models if you are using a spreadsheet EG calculating the voltage on an analogue integrator.

  • @txikitofandango
    @txikitofandango Рік тому +15

    Not only did this help me understand quantum mechanics better, it helped me understand probability and statistics better, or gave me ideas for how to convey it to others. There's a lot of power in the term "skinny rectangles" especially for helping students transition from discrete probability distributions to continuous ones.

    • @louisrobitaille5810
      @louisrobitaille5810 11 місяців тому

      Those skinny rectangles are one of the most basic concept in calculus 👀. Adding them all up is how integrals work 😁.

  • @compphysgeek
    @compphysgeek 4 роки тому +23

    this is what I like about these videos. Even if you don't learn anything profoundly new sometimes, when you see a good animation changing from one aspect to another, two previously separate things get connected and it clicks. A new level of understanding!

    • @ScienceAsylum
      @ScienceAsylum  4 роки тому +6

      Static diagrams just aren’t enough sometimes.

  • @tom_something
    @tom_something 4 роки тому +272

    This is the most intuitive explanation I've seen so far for laypersons like me. I've seen so many videos say, basically, "You get the probability by squaring the wave function." OK, so what exactly _is_ the wave function? "It's a probability thing." Which doesn't feel very helpful.

    • @tom_something
      @tom_something 4 роки тому +5

      @Fuert Neigt He's got a ton of really amazing videos. Don't forget to subscribe!

    • @Blox117
      @Blox117 4 роки тому +1

      @Fuert Neigt _anything_ you say? hmm...

    • @l1mbo69
      @l1mbo69 3 роки тому +3

      How was his answer any different? He did expand on it more but his final answer was of course the same, that it's a probability thing

    • @xiaoxiao-kg5np
      @xiaoxiao-kg5np 3 роки тому

      Tom, You should know there is more to this story. Intelligent people have long ago figured out that Quantum theory is all BS. Same with everything that the so called "genius" Einstein said. All total BS. Keep that in the back of your mind when things seem weird, this is the reason.

    • @tom_something
      @tom_something 3 роки тому +5

      @@xiaoxiao-kg5np classical (pre-Einsten and pre-Quantum) models do not explain observed phenomena. Is there a different model you can offer, or is this just filed under "who knows?"

  • @anhi399
    @anhi399 4 роки тому +98

    Underrated moment in this video was when Nick made sense of why we use sine and cosine: they make shapes that look like waves. Like, you need something to look wavy? Here, use this. Doesn't matter what that wavy thing is, but this will get you a pretty good picture of it on your graph, bud. Thanks.

    • @ScienceAsylum
      @ScienceAsylum  4 роки тому +20

      You're welcome :-)

    • @NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself
      @NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself 4 роки тому +10

      Fourier to the rescue!

    • @rzezzy1
      @rzezzy1 4 роки тому +15

      Yeah, that's basically it. A more calculus-based perspective on this (which is the math we use to calculate these wave functions in quantum mechanics) is that a sine or cosine wave is "proportional to its own second derivative." Basically, they are curviest at their own peaks, in a very precise way.

    • @erdemmemisyazici3950
      @erdemmemisyazici3950 2 роки тому

      This was a great explanation. It's all gradience, until it isn't.

    • @ronsnow402
      @ronsnow402 2 роки тому

      @@ScienceAsylum A probability distribution is just another way of saying "We don't know what happens on a smaller scale". We have to be humble & say "I don't know what the constituents of this wave is, or if any", & continue doing science. I wish you would have added this in your video, physicist need to be more honest about the data to avoid confusion... sometimes "I don't know" is the right answer.

  • @FedericoGalatolo
    @FedericoGalatolo 4 роки тому +59

    This is the best explanation of quantum wave functions that I ever seen. I've seen a lot of videos from a lot of UA-camrs and this is the only one that is actually understandable by non physicians. Great work!

    • @neoness1268
      @neoness1268 Рік тому +1

      totally agree with you

    • @88feji
      @88feji Рік тому +5

      You mean "physicists" ... (physicians are medical practitioners) ..

    • @kylecesar6347
      @kylecesar6347 Рік тому +3

      @@88feji no, only doctors understand wave functions

    • @Zeus-rk5yy
      @Zeus-rk5yy 10 місяців тому +1

      @@kylecesar6347 😂😂

  • @rzezzy1
    @rzezzy1 4 роки тому +10

    This might be the best layperson-accessible video on quantum mechanics I've ever seen

  • @Hoodoo93
    @Hoodoo93 4 роки тому +123

    Waaait, what? Yesterday i was searching something on this topic and meanwhile i was thinking "man, i really hope the science asylum will release a video on this". Nice

    • @ScienceAsylum
      @ScienceAsylum  4 роки тому +30

      Glad I could deliver :-)

    • @Secret_Moon
      @Secret_Moon 4 роки тому

      @@ScienceAsylum can you do a video explaining how the waves of two (or more) separate particles can interact with each other? I understand the nature of the quantum wave, but how can the waves from different particles interact to create the interference pattern, especially when they are separated by time like in the double slits experiment?

    • @NovaWarrior77
      @NovaWarrior77 4 роки тому

      You're his clone you, just don't know it.

  • @SagarKumar-xn1uf
    @SagarKumar-xn1uf 4 роки тому +33

    I clicked on the video for science and stayed for ..........
    SCIENCE!!!!!
    Your explanation is amazing !!!

  • @001firebrand
    @001firebrand 2 роки тому +38

    Max Born is one of the unsung heroes in science, 'cause his interpretation in 1926 of wave function as a probability function was groundbreaking at that times!

    • @Geokinkladze
      @Geokinkladze Рік тому

      Surely his greatest contribution is Olivia Newton John.

    • @dvoiceotruth
      @dvoiceotruth Рік тому +1

      he did get a nobel prize for that. there is no unsung here. if you want to know about an unsung hero then look for S.N Bose.

    • @bobespirit2112
      @bobespirit2112 9 місяців тому

      Wait - Max Born or Max Bohr? Oh, it’s Neils Bohr…oops

    • @bobespirit2112
      @bobespirit2112 9 місяців тому

      @@GeokinkladzeWait..what? I don’t get the connection…?

    • @bobespirit2112
      @bobespirit2112 9 місяців тому

      I looked it up - she’s his granddaughter from his daughter Irene. Well, I’ll be damned - definitely his most important contribution to humanity!!! 😂

  • @rickcarroll
    @rickcarroll 3 роки тому +4

    That was a great description of the QWF. The graphs really clicked the issue into my mind. I love the humour and general presentation of the video. Keep up the excellent work, videos like this should be compulsory in all physics courses. Cheers

  • @cirnothe5181
    @cirnothe5181 4 роки тому +103

    damn, that boxxy reference brought ME down to memory lane.

  • @shivamunplugged95
    @shivamunplugged95 4 роки тому +39

    for me , this is your best video..... quantum mechanics looked simple in this

  • @Thorhian
    @Thorhian 4 роки тому +12

    This madman is teaching about the basic idea of integration without letting the people watching the video know (which is probably good since you are trying to explain quantum wave functions in a simple way at the same time). Also, I finally noticed that 3Blue1Brown plushie on your shelf, nice!

    • @nibblrrr7124
      @nibblrrr7124 4 роки тому +1

      [bernhard riemann, stroking his beard in begrudging acknowledgement like a kung-fu master]

    • @billusandda5845
      @billusandda5845 2 роки тому

      @@nibblrrr7124 lol

  • @rkn8109
    @rkn8109 4 роки тому +1

    This is the greatest quantum video ever explored in youtube video or any platform. You just hit it. Thank u thank you so much Nick.

  • @gauravjoshi9685
    @gauravjoshi9685 4 роки тому +28

    As Richard Feynman said, "The prize is in the pleasure of finding the thing out, the kick in the discover"... Ya this video gives that required kick....

    • @jcf20010
      @jcf20010 4 роки тому +3

      He also said...
      If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.
      - Richard P. Feynman

    • @ADogNamedElmo
      @ADogNamedElmo 4 роки тому

      @@jcf20010 stupid quote

    • @jcf20010
      @jcf20010 4 роки тому

      @Jerry Perry I under stand it. The quote works on different levels. Kind of like this one:
      "You can observe a lot by just watching."
      -- Yogi Berra

  • @Quantum789
    @Quantum789 4 роки тому +27

    Mind totally blown this is what everyone means when they say it's the square of the wave function that gives any meaning to a quantum state

    • @ScienceAsylum
      @ScienceAsylum  4 роки тому +10

      Exactly.

    • @NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself
      @NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself 4 роки тому +1

      Isn't the square of the amplitude of a mechanical wave (or even EM wave) its energy?
      Is there an energy - probability equivalence?
      I remember Noether said energy and time have a symmetry, etc. But I don't remember the details.
      These quantum probabilities aren't just from functions of time (?)
      .. anyway, just rambling. Good observation.

    • @missingno9
      @missingno9 4 роки тому +4

      @@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself You're right that the square of the amplitude is the energy, but that only applies for physical waves.
      Wave functions are basically mathematical constructs used to describe probabilities, not actual physical properties like displacement or field strength.

  • @TheJaredtheJaredlong
    @TheJaredtheJaredlong 4 роки тому +10

    This man just casually explained the entirety of high school level maths in a single 11 minute video.

  • @ishakawade9100
    @ishakawade9100 Рік тому +1

    thank u so much for taking care of my curiosities so well, have just fallen in love with this channel

  • @PestOnYT
    @PestOnYT 4 роки тому +118

    Android Robot kicking the "i" - LOL !

  • @pritishjain674
    @pritishjain674 4 роки тому +55

    Shit has started to become real on this channel , you are getting sponsors . Finally!!

  • @JustaReadingguy
    @JustaReadingguy 4 роки тому +228

    "i" really get your joke.

    • @daves2520
      @daves2520 4 роки тому +4

      Good one.

    • @mikey20is
      @mikey20is 4 роки тому +1

      justa actually, that's about the only thing I did get. I watch his great vids for humility with a snippet of once and a while " ah ha "

    • @mito._
      @mito._ 4 роки тому +1

      underrated!

    • @tiny_toilet
      @tiny_toilet 4 роки тому +6

      i^2 don't.

    • @davidwuhrer6704
      @davidwuhrer6704 4 роки тому +1

      @@tiny_toilet Jay does, but he's an electrical engineer.

  • @migfed
    @migfed 4 роки тому +1

    Such a great video Nick. I love your vids they are always conceptually rich and plenty of good questions

  • @IshaaqNewton
    @IshaaqNewton 4 роки тому +5

    Very happy to see you after a long time explaining Quantum wave function. Your explanation is absolutely amazing.

  • @ataraxieabrutissante267
    @ataraxieabrutissante267 4 роки тому +3

    Love your videos. You go straight to the point, and cut the bullsh*t metaphores or theoretical explanations. It's very refreshing. Thanks !

  • @ZombyLP
    @ZombyLP Рік тому +1

    Thanks that was one of the most comprehensive explanations I have heard.

  • @jlpsinde
    @jlpsinde 4 роки тому +1

    Nick you're getting better and better. Just loved your video. Best explanation I've seen since learned this in 1993!

  • @XEinstein
    @XEinstein 4 роки тому +17

    I really love how you animated the electron as trying to be at every position at the same time, but still keeping it as a particle. That is the best visual representation of a wave particle duality I ever saw.

  • @dtrimm1
    @dtrimm1 4 роки тому +4

    Awesome work yet again Nick - thank you!

  • @BangMaster96
    @BangMaster96 4 роки тому +3

    This was by far one of the best explanation of the wave function i have ever seen.

  • @AndySpicer
    @AndySpicer 4 роки тому +1

    I have to say, I watch a lot of physics videos on UA-cam. Yours are great but the thing I like the most about them is that somehow you manage to figure out exactly the question I have, title the video as i would, and cover exactly what I needed to know to feel like I got my answer. Well done! At least for me, which may mean nobody else gets any of it. Hmmm. Well, I luv ya, so you have that!

  • @nama5257
    @nama5257 3 роки тому +3

    When you say at the end “Until then, it’s ok to be little crazy” I really feel very reassured. 😆

  • @thetntsheep4075
    @thetntsheep4075 4 роки тому +7

    Maybe it's because I've learned complex nos before unlike many things you talk about, but you explained this topic extremely well.
    In my opinion, this is one of your best videos yet! I love your, hmmm, "energetic" style 😂

  • @phatgus6895
    @phatgus6895 Рік тому +2

    You're a lsegend for that one fam.
    You answered all my questions.
    Thanks brodaaa 🤜🤛

  • @hussiendaeeh
    @hussiendaeeh 4 роки тому

    I am so grateful for all you have done for us!

  • @navidak
    @navidak 4 роки тому +3

    Good job taking us one baby-step at a time through a complex subject.

  • @p.j.h2401
    @p.j.h2401 4 роки тому +8

    Ur really best sir 💯
    No one explained me quantum mechanics that deep and well

  • @probabilitycodingisfunis1
    @probabilitycodingisfunis1 3 роки тому +1

    It's one of the best videos I have ever seen..makes understanding things way simpler..thanks!

  • @hannahboyd9367
    @hannahboyd9367 2 роки тому +1

    You are a life saver. Keep making these and adding the humor. Saved me from tears over chemistry

  • @makeracistsafraidagain
    @makeracistsafraidagain 4 роки тому +2

    I don't know if I learned anything, but I do enjoy how you present your material. You are a great teacher.

  • @sun71717
    @sun71717 4 роки тому +3

    Really this channel is so underrated! It deserved more subscribers. Let's make it popular!

  • @exhilex
    @exhilex 2 роки тому +2

    I absolutely love you man, may you live a long life. You make science exponentially easier! Thank you so very much

  • @Jonas-hk8rt
    @Jonas-hk8rt 3 роки тому +1

    Good stuff, clear and short enough. Thanks!

  • @SaberTooth2251
    @SaberTooth2251 4 роки тому +19

    One comment i would make is to show an example of a textbook picture of the cos and the isin and relate to the actual rotating wave function.
    Other than that, this is one of the best explanations I've encountered as to what the wave function "means"

  • @amatore6
    @amatore6 3 роки тому +8

    I think I've watched about every video on the wave function. This is the first or at least best I've found in showing how it actually works-what is actually does. I know how F=MA works, and I knew the wave function is the quantum analog of the F=MA, but I could not understand how the wave function predicted the future state. I did not until now understand about the different inputs for each property. I would like to more about what those inputs actually are so I can understand how it operates better. But this video advanced my non-math physics learning quite a bit. Thank you.

    • @fulanotu6611
      @fulanotu6611 7 місяців тому

      The imputs are displacement, time and frequency

  • @AnnDi
    @AnnDi 4 роки тому +1

    Dude, your videos are AWESOME! Keep it up man! Greetings from Bulgaria.

  • @macronencer
    @macronencer 4 роки тому +2

    I've said this before, but the thing I really love about your videos is that I always learn at least one new thing! This time, it was that the square involved in the Born rule is a *complex* square. I've seen many people write about the Born rule informally in comments here and there, but not ONE person has ever made that clear. Thank you!

  • @dackid2831
    @dackid2831 4 роки тому +5

    Quantum Mechanics has always seemed to be really strange... but you make it sound much simpler than I made it out to be. Thank you for showing the connections between probabilities, complex numbers, and integration to understand how those functions work. Awesome job! Although Quantum Mechanics will almost certainly still be a challenge, you made it seem less terrifying. So thank you for that.

    • @ScienceAsylum
      @ScienceAsylum  4 роки тому +1

      You're welcome 😊 Glad I could help

    • @Lucky10279
      @Lucky10279 Рік тому +2

      The _math_ of QM isn't actually that hard to understand -- it's all just calculus, linear algebra, linear differential equations, and basic probability theory. And, while those can certainly be challenging when you're first learning them, it's all standard math that's covered in a typical undergrad math or physics degree and is nothing specific to QM in particular. The truly challenging part is distinguishing between and relating the math, the experimental results, and the various interpretations. It's figuring out what, _if anything,_ the math actually tells out about individual particles that's so hard.

  • @pratyushbhattarai5632
    @pratyushbhattarai5632 4 роки тому +7

    Not the first one, but I'm certain I'll love it. Love from Nepal!!

  • @mohamedhelal3888
    @mohamedhelal3888 4 роки тому +1

    An excellent way to explain it. Thanks for the hard work you put in this video

  • @hectorgrande3166
    @hectorgrande3166 2 роки тому +1

    THIS IS AWESOME OMG IVE BEEN SO CONFUSED FOR SO LONG THANK YOU

  • @johnm.6975
    @johnm.6975 4 роки тому +11

    Made my day to see a new upload from the asylum

  • @Paul-ty1bv
    @Paul-ty1bv 4 роки тому +3

    This was great! And the dance music made it seem like a party.

  • @lutfiandre4371
    @lutfiandre4371 4 роки тому +1

    thank you so much. really it help me a lot. keep going on for spreading nice information like this.

  • @NadiaG1998
    @NadiaG1998 4 роки тому +1

    Your explanation really helped

  • @outside8312
    @outside8312 4 роки тому +117

    Quantum mechanics hurts my brain in a fun trippy way

    • @AdamAlbilya1
      @AdamAlbilya1 4 роки тому +10

      Quantum mechanics entangles my brain a PARTICULarly fun way.

    • @tuck295q
      @tuck295q 4 роки тому +2

      My head feels wavy 😖

  • @thedeemon
    @thedeemon 4 роки тому +6

    I love that *transform* sequence! I imagine inserting such clip into our software at work... ;)
    The whole vid is great too, of course.

    • @ScienceAsylum
      @ScienceAsylum  4 роки тому +3

      It's a nod to the Adam West Batman transition 😊

  • @ArifRezaBD
    @ArifRezaBD 4 роки тому +1

    I forcefully convinced myself that I understood the video. Thanks for your super awesome explanation. Nobody does it better than you.

  • @dragonfly3402
    @dragonfly3402 4 роки тому +1

    Brilliant as always! Amusing and highly informative.

  • @philochristos
    @philochristos 4 роки тому +19

    So THAT's why I had to learn calculus!

  • @josedanielbazanmanzano9607
    @josedanielbazanmanzano9607 4 роки тому +8

    ohh yeah, great to see edutubers that aren´t afraid of showing the math, specially for my current introduction to quantum mechanics course xdxd. Instant subscription and if you can talk about Hilbert spaces that would be awesome!!!

    • @nibblrrr7124
      @nibblrrr7124 4 роки тому +2

      Yesss, I'd also love to know what's the deal with Hilbert spaces.
      Or to get away from QM, how the heck do you (even begin to) describe spacetime curvature in numbers for GR? Or, how does Hamiltonian mechanics work, and how is it different from Lagrangrian?
      And anything along the lines of your recent div-curl-Maxwell/Heaviside episode would be _amazing_ - visualizing the important consequences of mathematical equations (though I realize that format is a tall ask ^^)

  • @nicolaskent3469
    @nicolaskent3469 2 роки тому

    VERY helpful Nick. Thanks.

  • @marloc2019
    @marloc2019 4 роки тому +1

    Awesome as usual.
    Thanks Nick for sharing this...

  • @calebmason2290
    @calebmason2290 4 роки тому +6

    Can you use some details from this video to explain the Pauli Exclusion Principle?

  • @kev4ev
    @kev4ev 4 роки тому +3

    I've got a feeling, after you assemble all your best explanations in its best sequence, I will FINALLY UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WORLD WORKS!

    • @aniksamiurrahman6365
      @aniksamiurrahman6365 4 роки тому

      OMG! So as soon as Science Asylum finishes producing all its videos, you'll take over the world!

    • @kev4ev
      @kev4ev 4 роки тому +1

      @@aniksamiurrahman6365 That was the plan!

  • @zoraamv1367
    @zoraamv1367 3 роки тому +2

    I love the fact that he literally said that he hate Quantum mechanics but still trying throughout the lecture to maintain interest on topic. that's the motivation I need to pursue my study 😅😅😅

  • @yashbisht8351
    @yashbisht8351 4 роки тому +1

    That was beyond awesome.
    Well done

  • @CliffJumpingProd
    @CliffJumpingProd 3 роки тому +6

    wow just found this channel today, goldmine! Its been hard being stupid but interested in what smart people are interested in, i've seen a few of your videos now and been able to follow everything, gotta say thats a first after many years of youtube, well done man! (And you're funny, 5:47) They say you dont really understand something until you can explain it easily, so you must *really* understand what you're talking about! unlike most other youtubers!

  • @rc5989
    @rc5989 4 роки тому +4

    Great video as always. Measurables go in, probability comes out, with Hizenberg limitations on certainty. No need for observers, or consciousness, or any woo whatsoever.

    • @lopezjraul
      @lopezjraul 2 роки тому

      The understanding of the behavior of the quantum particle as a probability without any understanding of where it comes from is derived from the quantum wave function. This is true and no need for any speculation to assert that. However, where does the quantum particle arise from? Or perhaps another question would be what is the nature of the quantum particle? Not what is the behavior of the quantum particle but what is it actually made up of? We called a wave but what does that mean as being defined in terms of its make up. Not advocating for woo here but it still doesn’t answer some important questions.

    • @rc5989
      @rc5989 2 роки тому

      @@lopezjraul My opinion is that a quantum particle is best understood as a discrete deposit of energy into a quantum field. This is pretty far down the philosophy of science rabbit hole, but the only remaining undefined term is ‘energy’ and that is both basic, yet does not have a formal definition. If we accept ‘energy’ then the definition is also acceptable. All my opinions.

  • @raghav9o9
    @raghav9o9 4 роки тому +2

    My god you are the best explainer among UA-cam 😌😌

  • @riddhibora973
    @riddhibora973 3 роки тому +1

    There is very less Probability that someone do not like your video.
    Its not so Complex task to subscribe and share your videos.
    Its time to get Real and start understanding the physics from this channel.

  • @kylorenkardashian5518
    @kylorenkardashian5518 4 роки тому +3

    I love your content. your videos help me escape my crippling depression for a short time & for that I thank you. I have a question about the perspective of a photon. from the perspective of a photon does time stop?

    • @ScienceAsylum
      @ScienceAsylum  4 роки тому +2

      You could say that, but I think it's more accurate to say the photon can't possibly have a perspective. Nothing traveling at the speed of light can. A perspective requires a rest frame and photons don't have one.

  • @azizutkuozdemir
    @azizutkuozdemir 4 роки тому +3

    this one was bit extra crazy :) i like it . laughted loudly around 6:00 - 6:20

  • @erichodge567
    @erichodge567 4 роки тому +1

    Still killin'it, Nick. Thanks a million.

  • @anitalayal9171
    @anitalayal9171 4 роки тому +1

    Hey u r great ,,,,u always clear topics in incredible way,,,

  • @theglobalgossip1539
    @theglobalgossip1539 4 роки тому +3

    This is Quantum mechanics for dummies to pro! Beautiful!

  • @IloveRumania
    @IloveRumania Рік тому +3

    9:42 Absolutely!

  • @alontsang7377
    @alontsang7377 2 роки тому

    Thanks bro. Awesome explanation. I love how you teach

  • @pattyrafter88
    @pattyrafter88 4 роки тому +1

    I really enjoy the longer videos

  • @otakuribo
    @otakuribo 4 роки тому +6

    *_The Born Rule_*
    starring Matt Damon as - no wait, wrong Bourne

  • @lakshaygupta9061
    @lakshaygupta9061 4 роки тому +4

    Hey, just wanted to let you know that this is fucking brilliant and one of the most "intuitive" descriptions on the topic I've ever seen

  • @gabriellepadley3015
    @gabriellepadley3015 2 роки тому +1

    Thank you for reinforcing that this is a mathematical function and not a physical property. No one has put it in those words and that is the concept I have struggled to grasp

  • @dhiyanmilan3459
    @dhiyanmilan3459 2 роки тому

    Such an informational videos. Thank you sir ❤️❤️

  • @user-iu1xg6jv6e
    @user-iu1xg6jv6e 4 роки тому +6

    7:55
    "Just give up"
    But we all know that you won't.

  • @hedgiehogUK
    @hedgiehogUK 4 роки тому +5

    Nick: "did this help you understand quantum mechanics a little better?"
    Me: LOL... like I come here for understanding 🤣

  • @rickwilliams9001
    @rickwilliams9001 4 роки тому +1

    This video helped me a lot in understanding the wave function. Very good .

  • @erenb.2806
    @erenb.2806 4 роки тому +2

    Love your videos dude keep it up.

  • @akusakuzan
    @akusakuzan 4 роки тому +3

    "bouncing squirrels arent the only waves in nature"
    i learned something today

  • @grapy83
    @grapy83 4 роки тому +3

    Awesome man. Even I'm starting to understand the horrible quantum probabilities.

  • @shubhamrawat_69
    @shubhamrawat_69 7 місяців тому +1

    great video btw, your explanations and visuals work way better than the words on my textbook.

  • @amandobhal4264
    @amandobhal4264 4 роки тому +1

    As always, great video.

  • @pkraja8723
    @pkraja8723 4 роки тому +3

    I've been watching your videos for about 2 years and yeah I have really learnt a lot
    And till now I've been ''crazy'' so far🤪🤪🤪🤪
    👍👍👍👍👍for ur channel
    Okay
    I still do have the following questions;
    1. Where the heck does the energy come from in the process of nuclear fission and fusion???????😰😰 Mass defect or nuclear binding energy????
    2. Nothing....
    that's all
    3..........''let's all be craz😜😜🤪🤪🤯🤯🤯

    • @ScienceAsylum
      @ScienceAsylum  4 роки тому

      Yes, the energy released during fission and fusion is nuclear binding energy... sort of. Technically, nuclear binding energy is negative (a loss). A bond is loss of energy that traps particles together. Here are a few videos explaining that if you haven't seen them:
      Nuclear Fusion Explained: ua-cam.com/video/LKUPAk5049M/v-deo.html
      What EXACTLY is a Bond? ua-cam.com/video/mFKCW_D2oE4/v-deo.html
      Bonds Do NOT Have Energy! ua-cam.com/video/g39nwNm0Xfw/v-deo.html

  • @jitteryjet7525
    @jitteryjet7525 4 роки тому +4

    No actual squirrels were harmed in this episode :-)

  • @physicscareer-abmanan
    @physicscareer-abmanan 3 роки тому +1

    The way you explained is amazing

  • @dixshants1227
    @dixshants1227 4 роки тому +1

    I loved this video. Please keep making more