Understanding Quantum Mechanics #4: It's not so difficult! 

My problem with Quantum Mechanics is always the internal visualization element. I have to be able to visualize in my head what Im working with. How do you visualize 'wave' functions? If the math doesnt mean more than the numbers I have a hard time with it. I have to see what its supposed to look like at the beginning and then work from there. I dont understand how you can do that with most of this stuff.

Aren't you Jaguar?

funny

And instinctively you are able to accurately express the oxymoronic truth that encapsulates the entire process of creation. Being that as we create our Present Now and Past and Future , we totally annihilate the now and replace it with the new now singularity... for example I just did that in a practical action as I had to cut a comment completely and replace it with an updated copy of the same comment... that is what life is. The past now is wiped out and replaced by the present now which came from the future now... constantly refreshing our old past reality with our new present reality which will be replaced by our future reality which was created by our present reality which is the only reality that can ever exist because the past does not exist anymore 0 The future does not exist yet 0 The Now always exists as the 1 Singularity that keeps changing form 1010101010 satisfying the law of the conservation of energy.

@@thetruthchannel349 > Someone said that as the photon flies along, it contains a little arrow that goes around and around. If the photon splits up and goes by more than one route to a detection site, the little arrow goes around and around along each route, and where they come together, those add up, and so they could cancel. So your detection site could see nothing; it might be in the middle of a dark band of the interference fringe.

Exactly, I got indulged in this video because of the Math that is rarely shown on YT. On the other hand, articles assume you are well versed in the subject and you are willing to spend hours researching the technical jargon..lol

If linear algebra is the 'gateway drug' to quantum mechanics then that makes perfect sense. Like a lot of people, I tried it in college and decided that it was interesting, but not how I wanted to spend the rest of my life.

I think you would like the lessons of Leonard Susskind on the Stanford University Channel on RU-vid as well. He explained this. They do take time, though!

@@ronaldderooij1774 well he is old😅 but nevertheless the quality is still delivered

Yeah - that's just how it is for me too. Have a good day. :-)

It is just a tool , it is not the "underlying" thing. Tools are replaceable and certainly all those ideas can be formulated without that math.

​@@Ernesto1317How?

I just found amazing that tomorrow i have 2 exams in the same day, quantic mechanics and machine learning and you managed to mention both right in the start ahahah

Just like learning Latin helps you understand so many languages.

Wow, I love that! Thanks for pointing that out, I'll probably use that image!

In other words, you mean, nothing more than magnetic flux of a magnet against copper, of course, 'scientist'.

Wow, the same thought like mine!

The fact that part of the probability of the wave function that we can't observe is an imaginary number makes the resemblance even more uncanny.

Schrodinger's cat is just Hegel's cat in disguise:- Thesis is dual to anti-thesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Being is dual to non-being creates or synthesizes becoming -- Plato. Hegel's cat: Alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non being) -- Schrodinger's cat. Plato discovered Schrodinger's cat 2500 years ago, he was a smart dude. All vectors are dual, they are defined by two dual points, the origin and the arrow head. Vectors are dual to co-vectors (forms). Dirac notation is based upon inner or dot products. The inner product is dual to the cross product. Probability leads to projection, prediction or syntropy. Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics. "By imagination and reason we turn experience into foresight (prediction)" -- Spinoza. Syntropy is the convergence or integration of ideas to form predictions or expectation. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem.

Bro studied QM with Werner Heisenberg himself. 💀

Her videos plugged a lot of holes I had in my knowledge of QM. It really made me seriously get back to studying.

Wow! Talk about PTSD! You should sue ETH Zurich!

@@l0_0l45 search ViaScience on RU-vid. There is an entire masters-level course in bite-sized pieces.

It's really amazing. I only followed the parts I was interested in, but this channel contains the equivalent of a master's degree for sure.

@@peetiegonzalez1845 Indeed, particularly the QM series from ViaScience is great, imho.

That’s hilarious!

:-D :-D :-D

A good explanation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

But if you looked at the speedometer, you could be anywhere.

Great joke.

The missing part is that for a complex number z, we have zz* = |z|^2 which is a real number, positive or null. It was somewhat implied but it was never written.

And again, and again, ad infinitum.

THANKS A LOT .NOW I HAVE ENOUGH COURAGE TO GO BACK AND PICK UP SAKURAI TO PROCEED FURTHER IN QUANTUM MECHANICS.

@@anupamkumarsinha9384 Do it!! QM is so cool and interesting!!!

Yes, I think the density matrix makes the transition from the very tiny to the classical regimes much clearer.

Ah, yes the Sakurai. I really understood QM only after I read this brilliant book. But only from the library. Buying it was way too expensive.

Hossenfelder is knowingly and deceitfully lying about physics.

@@frankdimeglio8216 Not that I can see.

Agreed, rip off the mask and look under the hood. Love it.

same for me with Science Asylum. The method of explanation is SO important. The more clearly someone understands a subject, the more clearly they can explain it. Even better if they use graphics.

There is nothing complicated here. This is high school math in slightly different notation with zero physics in it.

If you know linear algebra at least this isn't that bad.

Poorly explained

Broseph you are incorrect about the value of this presentation. I have multiple degrees including physics (see a comment a cpl days after yours) and what is sorely lacking in many formal instances is SIMPLE CONTEXT. It annoyed me the abstract manner I was "taught" QM (I wasn't taught anything I was "read") You are correct about the whole other branch of mathematics and solid foundation needed before tackling any of this QM stuff. If you are doing an undergrad physics degree like 2/3rds of it will be maths for the first 2 years, then in years 3-4 you get the pleasure of using said maths. Fourier transforms, separating the variables, deriving and solving Schrodinger's equation, Maxwell's equations, of course general relativity and Lorentian transforms (pretty easy in comparison to the rest). Then after all that some twat will "read" to you and introduce entirely new notation and processes, talking to you about Laplace this, Dirac that, and asking, "is this Hermetian"? Bitch it would help if you told me what type of Hermit crabs first. Oh you weren't talking about crabs or lap-dancing clubs but some random maths you are reading to me for the very first time in my life. Reading me maths. No don't try and work out what's happening or what any of this stuff is, just copy and paste, the lecturer is paid to "read" not "teach"

Ok

@@Pax_Veritas I'm not entirely sure whether your comment is directed at me since I don't know who Broseph is. However, I'll just go ahead and pretend you were targeting my comment. In that case I feel like you misunderstood my critique - I do agree that simple explanations and teachings are both often missing at university and important for scientists in training. I just don't agree with the way in which many attempts at simlpe explanations seem to downplay stuff in the same breath. In my opinion presenting a smart, intuitive and simple ACCESS to a difficult subject loses its added value when it is sold to be the "real deal". Also, congratulations on your multiple degrees including physics! Good job! Finally, I'm not sure what happened to you in that last paragraph and it's hard to judge one's emotional state via a RU-vid comment section. Still I sense some measure of frustration - is that right? In that case: Hang in there, mate! Everything's gonna be okay! :-)

@@manjsher3094 is it, though?

@@user-yv8bw3zf6n it is very ok.

What's the book's title?

@@yahiakandil4086 Lost in Math. It's pretty good. It's about Sabine's quest to understand why physicists are obsessed with the notion that physics must be beautiful, and her impressions of how that has backfired in modern physics. It's a refreshingly honest take on the shortcomings of modern academia.

@@1ucasvb thanks :)

@@1ucasvb "lost in math" explained, perfect 👌

@@1ucasvb "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Historically speaking, physics has gotten more "beautiful" over the centuries. Part of that is discovering new symmetries (which means we can merge two fields together) and part of it is simply notational improvements. The real reason physicists chase 'beauty' so much these days is that we don't really have anything else to look for. The LHC confirming the Higgs to be basically what we expected means we don't have any real leads for the next step to take. We know there _is_ a next step because of the fundamental incompatibility between QM and GR, but we're not going to be able to directly probe those energy levels likely in the next few hundred years, if ever. Short of a miracle new collider design or a complete fluke with some astronomical event, we're stuck with just poking around at the energy scales we have available and hoping to prod something out to give us a hint. In the meantime physicists want to stay employed, and our only real "hint" for what's next is following the history of unification. Maybe the planned LHC upgrades will prod out something new like those elusive SUSY particles we keep expecting, but really there's not much guarantee that anything exists between the Higgs and the energy levels where we expect GUT to occur, and even that is likely a good couple of collider generations (not just upgrades) away still. Which could be a century or more given how long it takes to design, fund and build such immense projects.

Keanu Reeves was great in that movie.

I Agree

Reminds me of the first line in the Tao: "The real Tao is not the Tao that can be spoken about nor understood" or in your words "If you think you can understand the Tao, then you do not understand the Tao"

yeah well that was valid back then in the beginning days of QM, today more and more is understood as is also explained in vids like this. 500 yrs ago electricity was also something that one could think to understand but dont understand it at all... same goes for all new discovered natures features. of Einsteins theories it was close to the same....and now every simple soul can understand it simply. So Feynmans statement wears off over time. Thing is one needs to start thinking in different ways then one was used to and then it becomes more easy over time.

I think I don't understand quantum mechanics, then now I am sure I understand quantum mechanics.

@Bertrand de Born are you always so unpolite by calling people idiots before you even know them ????? well you know what they say......... it takes one ...... to know one

Yes it is... What? It is hard.

@@ericreiter1 It is certainly hard if you can't understand the notations that are used.

Sorry the future was many years ago - Michio Kaku built one as a high school science fair project -

What is it that is now clear that wasnt before? How do you visualize QM and the wavefunction now as compared to before?

Yes!

I really didn't! But this fact confirms that Born was a genius.

@@hernando-d We all are related.

Wow !

'Let's get physical'!

Me too. I guess it takes 10 years of studying to get up to that level of understand

@@Brodda-Syd No not really, the point of the video is that the very complex individual variables and numbers don't matter as much as the mathematical concepts you can use to study the field, concepts which are much easier to understand when you're not looking at large equations and functions.

@@pogtuber5146 I understood the point of the video, what I could not comprehend was her explanation on how she arrived at this conclusion as I am unable to interpret any of the formula's that were presented and so could not follow her steps.

at 10 seconds she acts like we are scared of mathsymbols and directly proceeds to explain bra ket notation. i think she has a screw loose

Did you read Susskinds the theoretical minimum? That’s what first inspired me!

Now what about the tensor concept which is a genrealization of the vectot concept. Some visualization pictures or stories will be useful.

😂 me rn

I’m off to conjugate my basis vectors and stick them up my variable coefficient. Wave functioning goodbye...

I just took Quantum last quarter. For the most part, the math for Quantum 1 is pretty easy. There are no long differential equations. Most of my solutions were less than a page long. If you understand basic linear algebra, given enough time, you can get a basic understanding of it. You have to remember that it's very abstract, so it is hard to model in your brain if you don't understand that math,;and that is mostly due to using Hilbert Space, which isn't really a space like you are used to.

You are Michael Faraday and I claim my £5.

NOT!

You should be. It is, as the 'story so far.' Later episodes get us farther. Just wait!

She could have gone a bit faster.

Loooooooooooooool

WHY THE MOON CONSTITUTES A CLEARLY BALANCED QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL FORM IN ACCORDANCE WITH E=MC2 AS F=MA: What is the THE MOON is necessarily invariant AND terrestrial (a LAND relation) in accordance with the fundamental fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. So, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. Therefore, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. Therefore, the Moon is moving AND not moving IN BALANCE in conjunction with invisible AND VISIBLE SPACE in fundamental equilibrium AND BALANCE; AS E=mc2 IS then F=ma. THE MOON is ALSO manifest or shaped in balance WITH THE EYE. The Moon IS THEN manifest ON BALANCE as what is ALMOST invisible in RELATION to/with the BLUE SKY, AS the dome of a person's EYE is ALSO visible on BALANCE. Magnificent. Notice that the shape or curvature of what is the Moon matches that of what is the EARTH/ground (given what is a clear horizon, of course). SO, the ORANGE SUN is CLEARLY proven to be FUNDAMENTALLY in accordance WITH the setting, WHITENED, AND fully illuminated Moon; AS the INVARIANT form of what is the TERRESTRIAL or LAND BASED Moon is then clearly proven ON BALANCE. It is CLEARLY predictable that there will then also be the experience of less gravity in relation to what is the Moon. Importantly, BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. So, it is also CLEARLY explained why objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Great !!! It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Notice that the Earth is also BLUE (as water), AND the Earth is also ORANGE (as lava). The composition of lunar rocks is, in fact, practically identical to that of Earth rocks. Notice the black space of what is THE EYE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) SO, it ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. E=mc2 IS CLEARLY F=ma. I now have mathematically unified physics/physical experience. Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. INDEED, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=mc2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma in a BALANCED fashion. Again, BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. So, I have successfully and consistently used time in order to to CLEARLY PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy must be gravity; AS E=mc2 IS necessarily F=ma in what is a consistent and BALANCED FASHION. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Therefore, gravitational force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; as E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. Again, notice that the DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO visible. So, consider what is balanced BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE. Magnificent. INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, as E=mc2 IS F=ma. The Moon is a universal reflection of the Earth/Sun BALANCE, as the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE AND the FULL DISTANCE in/of space are linked AND BALANCED; as gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites; as E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The Earth AND the Sun are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. Therefore, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON NECESSARILY matches it's revolution. Great. E=mc2 IS CLEARLY proven to be F=ma !!!! The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. GREAT !!!!! The EARTH and the Sun constitute and comprise the MIDDLE AND THE FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE (IN BALANCE) in full and BALANCED compliance and conformity with the CLEAR and universal fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Great !!!!!! Hence, it is CLEARLY proven, in fact, that the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON NECESSARILY matches it's revolution. Great. Obviously, what is THE MOON is subject to and constitutive of both E=mc2 AND F=ma. E=mc2 IS CLEARLY proven to be F=ma. "Mass"/energy involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. The following constitutes even further proof of the fact that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Very importantly, in dream experience, BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE is invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE. Dream experience is/involves true/real QUANTUM GRAVITY, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; as E=mc2 IS F=ma. By Frank DiMeglio

'wave function' represents the probability of electron being at a place, is it? But why probability comes into picture in the first place? How come the electron behave/move randomly as if it has a mind of its own

@@rgudduu Hello, Even Einstein was upset when he said something along the lines that God does not play dice with the universe. Google for more about that. It was Max Born, as far as I recall, who first said that the square root of the wave function multiplied by its complex conjugate is the probability. I will never accept that the motion of the electron around the proton in the hydrogen atom is described by probabilities. Peter.

More bra than we´re used to...

Here's a fun cartoon for you: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qs26qv6C-38.html

Only in quantum mechanics can you make a pun without using the word you're punning on.

@@praveenb9048 It depends how you measure it.

Lol shopping List math is the hard stuff. It must be a branch of bistromatics.

And now you are the Chief of the Fire Department?

Adding up the costs on a shopping list requires calculating the dot product between the unit-cost vector and the quantity vector. I suppose you could arbitrarily take one of those to be the row vector and the other the column vector.

@@bozo5632 Things started going down hill when my parole officer told me that I was borne in the alcoholic ward of a mental institution for the criminally insane. That reminds me, I need to get batteries for my calculator.

Actually, I know a top-flight mathematician who can't do his taxes.

Sorry, lol.

@@SabineHossenfelder Are you _really?_

Very funny and awesome comment

On a Saturday afternoon? Damn, Quantum mechanics sucks.

The probability of a nap is approaching 1.

@@obsidianjane2267 - Yes it is!

Because probabilities have to sum up to 1.

1 = 100%. It is 100% sure, that one of the possible outcomes will be measured, because there is no other possible outcome. So all probabilities summed up have to be 1=100%

a1a1* means the probability of finding the system in state 1; a2a2* means the probability of finding the system in state 2; a3a3* means the probability of finding the system in state 3; ..., akak* means the probability of finding the system in state k; ..., The sum of all these probabilities is 100%. a1a1* + a2a2* + a3a3* + ... + akak* + ... = 1 = 100% That's because when you perform a measurement on a quantum system, you will always find it in one of its possible states. Thus, we say that the probability of finding the system in one of the possible states is 100%.

@@SabineHossenfelder So the "1" means that the probability would be 100% that the calculated event would occur? And 0.5 would mean that the chance is 50%?

@@MauriceApophis Yes

As said, the problem does not lie with the math. It is the interpretation.

1: no 2: no , there isn't anything wrong, what did you mean in particular?

@@bekoe2992 Reading comprehension issues?

@@JohnVKaravitis What do you mean? There is nothing wrong with the things said or showed at the time marks you commented. Do I understand something wrong what you said?

Hm... I think you're the one reversed. Just saying.

@@IkikaeruRaimei Good luck on losing your virginity!