The Generalized Uncertainty Principle | Proof/Derivation 

Alright everyone; if you've been following along this playlist and made it this far, congratulations! You have officially completed the prelude to Quantum Mechanics series, where I teach the mathematical formalism behind QM. Hop on over to my Quantum Mechanics playlist to get started on learning the actual Physics behind QM! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kUm4q0UIpio.html

Came here for a quick refresh on Dirac notation, ended up staying for the whole playlist this is very useful! Fast pace, but short videos full of important and relevant information presented in a very logical sequence. Thank you so much!

Why on earth this channel isn't famous yet?

I genuinely think this channel offer a very valuable content, it offers a lot of well explained videos for an undergrad physics student or anyhow who is just interested in learning physics or math on a higher level . Not too many channels offer that, keep it up man !

This playlist was a wonderfully compact refresher. Excellent presentation, thank you.

Thank you for this *amazingly concise* and *incredibly helpful* RU-vid series.

I found my gem in a corner of the internet... thanks so much!!!

this channel is so underrated! good work!!

I studied this from two textbooks and they definitely did not explain it this well. Thank you so much for this!

Excellent video, made my exercises very doable.

Brilliant video series!! Thank you sooo much!!

Was so confused when I first saw this proof 2 years ago...finally it makes a bit more sense hahah. Looking forward to the next part of the series!

beautiful demonstration

This was the most amazing video ever hahaha this is very accessible to undergrads thank you dear teacher:3

very Informative video. looking for next playlist

beautiful demonstration.

This is the first video I've seen of you, this channel is amazing. Do you have a video on the derivation using Fourier transforms?

Great series! thank you.

Thank you for this series

If you don't yet I'd suggest making a series about linear algebra and mathematical physics. It's very useful, thank you.

Keep it up! Amazing job!

Very nice explanation ..

"Quantum Mechanics: Foundations and Applications" by Arno Bohm This is a graduate-level text (or advanced undergrad text), so don't start here; however, the writing style is very clear and crisp. The author approaches Quantum Theory as an algebraic structure built to explain measured phenomena, like Werner Heisenberg. It treats states as vectors and observables as operators on those vectors.

Thank you so much ..was a great help

Looking forward to the rest of the series, by the way, do you have a day of the week you generally upload or do you simply do it when you have time? Will keep and eye out anyway!

Great derivation

Hello, perfect series. I just want to ask which books/sources did you use for this series and if you can give some recommendations on what to read. Most of the series reminds me of Quantum Mechanics: Concepts and applications by Nouredine Zettili.

Yes... Finally

Very helpful sir I am from India

great stuff

Thanks very much

If the expectation of A is a scalar, how can you subtract it from a Hermitian operator? Are you subtracting it from each element in the Hermitian operator?

At 3:58, the commutator symbols are confusing, because they should be parentheses if I'm not mistaken (also, at 4:06)

I wonder if you plan on doing manifolds

Could you perhaps explain to me why when you square the expectation value of delta A hat delta B hat, you don't end up with cross terms? Is it because the cross terms would be purely imaginary and thus a norm squared would just be equal to the real parts of the square? This makes sense, but I'm struggling to see how you can take the norm of the expectation value of the commutator of A hat and B hat before the square and still end up with no cross terms. Edit: I realized that none of the above is necessary/makes sense. The expectation value of delta A hat delta B hat is just a complex number with imaginary component from the commutator and real component from the anti-commutator. Thus finding the norm square is just equal to multiplying the value by its complex conjugate, which will get rid of cross terms, and any negative quantities.

thanks

Finally I understood everybit of the equations. Sir could you suggest me some good understandable books on quantum mechanics

One doubt in this derivation sir

1:00:00 If we are in a trajectory spin, you can not forecast with any certainty the future Our trajectory spin system that never allows the observer to exist as a communicative function but as a conjugate system hence the trajectory spin observation as conjugate symmetry

4:05 How is it obvious that Delta A * Delta B = 1/2 [A,B] + 1/2 {A,B}?

that was completely unintelligible but its interesting to follow along behind somebody to whom these hieroglyphs seems to convey sensible rational reasonable logical provable methodology ...... it would require 5 years of university study for me to become convinced that anything about this video corresponded to anything in the outside world, and even then i would still wonder if i had seen some revealed truth or simply become brainwashed ..... i tend to see this material as an entirely imaginary edifice inside the human mind rather than an obvious self-revelatory expression of the actual nature of external reality as revealed by the senses and puzzled out by inquisitive geniuses.......in other words quantum mechanics is to the real world as Pablo Picasso's Nude Descending A Staircase is to real women

It is very cool that you derive a general mathematical theorem about linear operators, but you didn't teach the student any physics here. I would actually suggest that you are misleading the student into believing that you were teaching quantum mechanics here when the exact same formulas apply to classical wave systems and are being used in signal processing applications in audio, video and RF systems, basically everywhere where we are using Fourier transformations and their generalizations.

bra ket notation... why ? why? ... just use vectors and conj. transpose. .. a standard inner product space.

Is this guy 3B1B

I think the 1st question ought a be what forces are acting on us to help permeate this imagination called mathematics to explain our reality using matrix vectors in hermiston vectors I beg to differ with mathematics not as a functioning language of displacement of a thing called real numbers in your own mathematical construct your own mathematical preponderance and mathematical construct States that mathematics is lower ranking system than imagination. it's a much lower ranking system than reality, therefore, how can your mathematics ever ever be able to explain anything about this reality other than creating subset sub standardized technology that we observe now that occupy in R space, this thing called a reality, created from a subset of imagination called mathematics that's propelled by a hierarchy of imagination and reality? Back to the quantum mechanics observation of reality as far as from our human perspective Here is my observation after observing and comparing to your mathematical observations What your quantum mechanics physics is describing is a kinetic energy system that manifests itself as a trajectory with spin, I'm not talking about electron orbitals of our kinetic energy system, however as a trajectory with spin as a hierarchy of trajectory with spins of all matter mass I even suspect a natural explanation of our Trajectory Spin energy system as a simple entropy scalar back to conjugate symmetry by particle attraction of spiraling mass called spiraling galaxies which then emit leading and trailing singularities perpendicular of the galactic plane creating trajectories spins weaving a fabric of particles creating branes theorized in string theory My thought imagination describes a big Bang with singularities as its beginning or observed from our theorized beginning as a big bang and does not violate any of our known laws of physics, and it's observed all over our universe as leading and trailing singularities

thanks