Hi friends, thanks so much for watching! I'd like to thank Squarespace for sponsoring this video. Go to Squarespace.com for a free trial, and when you’re ready to launch, go to www.squarespace.com/parthg to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. And as always, let me know what other topics I should cover in future videos :)
I don't understand why you're stating Born's interpretation as if it were fact; it's the opposite of what Schrodinger was trying to do with de Broglie's idea. It's a bit like taking Zadeh's idea of fuzzy membership and waving it away with crisp membership plus probabilities. Yes probability can substitute for many other concepts but doing obscures the thinker's original point. It's a bit like saying every time I spend a dollar I have a %1 chance of now having an empty wallet, rather than tracking how many of 100 $1 bills I have spent; over time the probabilistic method will converge on equivalence but its totally obscuring what's going on.
@@piyushgalav6483 in the american university system, they usually name courses based on approximately what year into a bachelors degree you are. So a 100 level would be something a 1st year takes, 200 level a 2nd year, 300 3rd year etc.
Honestly IMO wavefunction collapse (in the Copenhagen interpretation) isn't really something that can be grasped, rather you just have to accept it when doing quantum mechanics. I think understanding that this is the case was what really made me confident as a physicist in training. To really understand collapse you have to look into the various different models that actually elaborate on what collapsing means, like many worlds (nothing actually collapses, it just feels like it because we're inside the system we're trying to describe), pilot wave (the particle was already in the state before measurement) and objective collapse (particles randomly collapse on their own and set up chains of everything else collapsing).
@@nujuat I agree, waveform collapse is a human concept. We can talk about a wave in discrete terms, but we're only making representations of what they do or might do in real life. Waves certainly don't see themselves in these terms. It's like modeling humans as 3D objects in Minecraft, they can move up down, left and right. But you wouldn't use that to predict the housing bubble crash, or what you'll eat for dinner tomorrow. And we certainly don't see ourselves in real life as those blocky objects in Minecraft.
@@nujuat truth is nothing is collapsing, it's simply changing form-direction. The only thing going on here's these people have taken wind checking and made it into some mysterious theory of fairy dust.
Parth, I love your clear, organized, well laid descriptions. May I suggest that the 'collapse of the wave function' is due to the inevitable loss of energy arising from the transfer of information to the observer.
Thank you so much. It's hard to put into words how incredibly well said this was compared to every single other video I have ever seen on this subject.
Sorry but this video I did not like. As I understand it, there is a consensus among many physicists that to understand measurement, you have to acknowledge that the act of measuring involves the particle interacting with the measurement apparatus, which itself is a quantum system. It is this continued interaction with the environment that leads to decoherence and subsequently the collapse of the wave function, no magic needed, just a really complicated system to consider. I find all this talking about the Copenhagen interpretation and what it means, and that we don't know for sure how things work, is counterproductive and cheap. The Copenhagen interpretation is a simplification of a more complex system, a useful tool for calculating, and should be treated as such, and not be taken as the underlying truth that we just don't fully understand. If I estimate the volume of a cow by simplifying the cow to a sphere, and observing that the volume of water that a cow displaces very accurately matches what I predicted using the sphere ansatz, I would not go on talking about how cows really are spherical and we just don't fully understand how comes that they don't look like a sphere.
You can also get rid of the measurement problem in the Copenhagen interpretation just by treating any interactions between any two arbitrary systems as a "measurement," meaning there is nothing special about measurement, just interactions. Carlo Rovelli has already discussed in detail how treating it this way does not lead to any contradictions with quantum theory: it does not require any change to the mathematics and it does not contradict any predictions many in QM. The belief that there is a measurement problem that needs to be solved by either positing the existence of "objective collapse" or even the existence of "many worlds" is thus purely a philosophical position and not one actually demanded by the theory.
Hi Parth, have you covered quantum wave packets (with or without dispersion). I have been looking into them and there is not many educational videos on RU-vid about them. What I am wondering, is, if particles are quantum wave packets? Anyway I like your stuff and it has helped me in my studies. Thank you for your contribution.
I love Parth’s videos. They leave me in a paradoxical state, like quantum mechanics: I feel like I learn something each time, while feeling more ignorant each time… Seriously, though, these are awesome.
@@schmetterling4477 I have found numerous references to the “wave function collapse”, such as those below. has the theory been updated? boulderschool.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/A%20cavity.pdf en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse I also found references where Richard Feynman states that “there is no such thing as the collapse of the wave function”, but indicated that this was just a matter of Termanology
@@macleadg Yes, there is an awful lot of bullshit about that around. A wave function is ontologically similar to a probability distribution. It describes the so called "quantum mechanical ensemble", which is basically a set of infinite repetitions of the same experiment. It can't tell us anything about a single outcome. That's no different from e.g. the probability distribution for dice, which can't tell us which number will come up next. It can only tell us that all six numbers are roughly equally likely if we throw dice often enough. The limit of "often enough" is the infinite repetition and there is a law of large numbers which tells us that the frequencies of throws converge on the probability distribution. There are important differences between probabilities and wave functions beyond that, but the most important part is that a single outcome of a QM experiment does not change a wave function any more than a single throw of a dice changes the probability distribution of dice. Hence the "collapse" language is nonsensical. It doesn't tell anybody anything about what is really happening. It's not even clear where this nonsense originated. It may have come from a particularly muddled sentence in one of Heisenberg's not so great papers. That's the only primary reference that I could find and it's not clear if Heisenberg actually meant what modern users of this phrase seem to imply.
Any computer simulation of the collapse of the wave function is a simulation of a collective phenomenon which needs to run in many dimensions of configuration space. We just don’t have a powerful enough computer to do it. We might have a hypothesis to guide the computer simulator such as my idea of adding tachyonic Brownian motion, but we cannot cope with exponential-time algorithms.
But remember that waveform collapse doesn't happen in real life. We can slice an instant in time out of real life in an abstract way on paper or in a computer, but a particle is never in 1 state, in 1 place, at say, 10:43am for example. I think perturbation theory and the wave function (and measurement) confuse layfolk because they don't know it's a simplified fictional representation of specified observables like spin or charge. And we use our familiarity with life at human scale to visualize concepts like the wave function, instead of trying to visualize the wave itself!! as it would be observed in nature... Electrons aren't discrete little balls orbiting a nucleus. The stuff that reality is made out of is far more complex and beautiful in reality than it is in a representation in a book. Of course, we need these simplified stick drawings of these things to communicate and teach aspects of them in a bite size digestible way... But don't mistake those simplified representations of pieces of information -with what these things really are in the physical world.
Experiments and electrodynamic theory prove nearfield electromagnetic fields are instantaneous. See links below for details. And the reality of instantaneous nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Dr. William Walker - PhD ETH Zurich 1997 *RU-vid presentation of above arguments: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-sePdJ7vSQvQ.html *More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 *Nearfield electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1
Hypothetically, if there was no maximum speed, but only a maximum perceivable speed would the math work? For example helicopter blades travel much faster than we can visually perceive. If we believed that our maximum perceivable speed was in fact the absolute maximum speed, then the blades seem to be in all possible locations at once. I'm sure a function could be created to determine the probability of the blades position at any given time based on what we believe their maximum speed to be. If we put a detector where we think the blades should be at any given time, would it correlate to our function?
That’s crazy, I just had that thought as well, maybe waves are oscillating at a rate we cannot perceive and we only perceive the emergent result. I am pretty sure it wouldn’t work though, and I am pretty sure we are both just naive as to the mathematics of all this. Causality would be broken for one thing. I think people are just really uncomfortable with the idea of quantum mechanics, so they want to explain it away, even Einstein did.
Yes, he also gave you the wrong explanation in four minutes. I can give you the correct one in a few sentences: An unmeasured single copy of a quantum system is no more in a quantum state than moving dice are in any one of their final resting outcome states. Only the abstract quantum mechanical ensemble is in superposition, which is a property of the math and not a property of physical systems. Only after the quantum system (dice) have shed their extra energy (the quantum system in form of a quantum of energy, the dice in form of friction with the table), can they be said to be in a well defined physical state. ;-)
You mentioned that "...based on the surroundings, the system may either stay in the 'measured' state or start spreading according to the Schrodinger's equation..." Questions: 1. If (in theory) the system is completely isolated, then would it stay in the measured state, or would it still start to spread into a superposition? If so after how long and what causes this? 2. If the spread after measurement is due to surroundings - then should it not actually lead to 'entanglement' rather than simple evolution as per Schrodinger's equation? Appreciate if you could comment - thanks.
So basically when you let go of one answer and allow the possibility of many. Is the correct way to live. In detachment, even shown in quantum . Wow ❤️
Qigong-Lesson 39. Hetu Luoshu that saves the world (13) Quantum Mechanics - Wave Function Collapse Speaking of this lesson, children should accept and understand the "metaphysical" uniform universe. Then, the wave function collapse in quantum mechanics can have a powerful explanation. The answer is not the "human consciousness" deduced by the predecessors, scientists. The answer is the "frequency" of yin-yang alternation, a frequency established both in quantum yin-yang (spin) alternation, and on the observer/instrument, an even-numbered frequency. The situation is just like, the "opening and closing" of the observed corresponds to the "opening and closing" of the observer, resulting in random wave function collapse. Or "only together". And this phenomenon further confirms the metaphysical theory of Hetu Luoshu. Linus
I feel like an easy way to look at this would be the old coin toss analogy regarding probability. We know a coin when flipped into the air can land heads or tails. We know the probability is 50/50. If that probability were the shrodinger equation then the collapse of the wave function is akin to our inability to predict each instance of a coin flip but also be certain of the probability. So when a coin is heads 10 times in a row the probability we know to be 50/50 would look hopelessly incorrect for that span
There is no collapse of the wave function. The wave function is an average over the dynamics of an infinite number of copies of the system (that's called the "quantum mechanical ensemble"). It is completely independent of any one outcome. People need to stop talking about this nonsense that is not even defined in actual textbooks on the subject.
QM classicalized in2010: Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics uncovers the ‘hidden variables ‘ and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Planck, Einstein,Bohr. The proton is @1836 expanding electrons grouped together and add a bouncing expanding electron makes a hydrogen atom. So,no. The probability cloud is simply the bouncing electron nearer the top of the bounce. Ridiculous.
A wavefunction is a mathematical equation which combines properties of a particle with properties of its associated wave. A wavefunction describes probable path & position of a particle in motion. When particle stops its motion or is observed its associated wave dissipates/disperses leaving the particle alone. This is called wavefunction collapse.
A house has many rooms that an occupant can be in. If you find the home owner in one of the rooms, why doesn't the house collapse? Why does the wave function collapse when you detect the electron?
I only found a physicist explaining it right. The wave function never collapses, the interference collapses. Meaning that there is at least one wave all the time. The house never collapses, but your uncertainty collapses.
The simplest interpretation I find is the relational interpretation: there is no "collapse" because there is no "wave" at all. There is just particles. Heisenberg's initial formulation of quantum mechanics used matrices and not waves. The wave function is thus just a particular mathematical formalism which makes all the same predictions as a different formalism without waves, and thus using the wave function to prove there really are ontological waves that observe when not being measured is unjustified. If we accept Heisenberg's formalism, then there are no waves. Particles just move in discontinuous ways. When a photon is fired from a light source to a detector, it does not actually spread out as a wave, but disappears from the source and, after a time delay, appears at the detector. There is a similar viewpoint to this when it comes to the electromagnetic field called the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory which shows that you can get rid of the electromagnetic field by just positing that one particle affects others at a distance given a time delay. The field itself is a metaphysical construct that is not actually necessary for the mathematics to work. If you accept this is true of quantum fields, that the "probability waves" don't actually exist and particles move in a discontinuous fashion, then there is no collapse, there is no measurement problem, there is no nonlocality, there is no multiverse, and it is compatible with philosophical realism.
How do we know the system is in superposition of all possible states before we measure it? How do we know that fact before measuring it? Measuring it will collapse so, what made us come to that conclusion before measuring it.
You can prepare the system in a superposed state. For example, you can put an electron in a spin up on Z axis and we know (from the spin theory) that this state is a superposition on left and right states in th X direction.
Honestly we don't really and some physicists disagree with it. Saying that the system doesn't really exist until you make the measurement. I find that that's not really a useful way of thinking though. It's a similar argument to "well I was actually born 8 minutes ago and all of my memories are actually faked and given to me by some god". But yeah, more of a philosophy thing and word games about what you mean by "superposition" or "real". If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck, you know?
Wave function collapse is like rolling dice? Expected probabilities that are accurate, but any one roll creates a single outcome. While the dice are still rolling it exists in all of those uncollapsed states
There is no wave function collapse. There is no collapse of the probability distribution, either. Both abstract quantities are defined by the averages of the behavior of infinite ensembles.
I often wonder if these principles can be applied to macro-scale chaotic systems such as the movement of people in a city with the probability of finding a person in a certain location given variables such as time of day, weather etc.
Easy, load Minecraft on your computer. Create a landscape and load it up with people. Then, pause the game. And forget everything before that. Where they're headed, what their body temperature is, how much they weigh, act like you didn't see any of that. Now use that paused screen to calculate probabilities of where they might be in the future. Or anything else you might want to speculate about. You can only include 1 or 2 observables in your calculations though, like direction, speed, or if they're spinning. That overly simplistic bullsh** view of humans, is exactly the same as using the Schrödinger wave function to visualize real particles in real life.
But humans move in predictable ways, we all go in circles when we get lost, Lots of organisms do that. If you're wondering if you can use simple mechanical calculations, and entropy and things like that to predict the behavior of crowds for example, the answer is yes.
@@daltanionwaves but you cannot say if they are lost or simply not. If they are predictable as you claim. If they are predictable, why do you need an instrument? "Look he is walking down that street again, get my megtometer from my Mister Gizmo bag I got from Cracker Jack"
Yes. Because attention and intention affect matter and outcome. QM experiments like the quantum eraser show this and so does the Copenhagen experiments that were just backed up by the Nobel prize 2022 for proving there are no hidden variables in quantum mechanics and that non locality and entanglement are for real Einstein was wrong and that there is "spooky action at a distance" and that God does "play dice." Consciousness is the reason why. A person only has to read the words of the fathers of QM to understand the answer to this question lies in the magic of consciousness and the can explain how quantum mechanics experiments speaks the language of the universe. It all sounds like heavy duty words until you look further into the matter, just kidding I mean THE matter. I hope you really wanted an answer because there is one and it is very special. Yes, Max Plank meant it when he said, "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." To be clear, he also said the following: "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter. - Max Planck." But Max is not an isolated case among the fathers of quantum mechanics. There are other brilliant minds that our less talented proponents of naive realism have to contend with. Neils Bohr Neils Bohr was an avid reader of the Vedic texts and observed that their experiments in quantum physics were consistent with what he had read in the Vedas. Here is a sampling of his wisdom: "Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." "Nothing exists until it is measured." "When we measure something we are forcing an undetermined, undefined world to assume an experimental value. We are not measuring the world, we are creating it." "Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems ." Erwin Schrödinger Erwin Schrödinger, in speaking of a universe in which particles are represented by wave functions, said, “The unity and continuity of Vedanta are reflected in the unity and continuity of wave mechanics. This is entirely consistent with the Vedanta concept of All in One.” "Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind..." "Quantum physics thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe." Consciousness cannot be counted for in physical terms, for consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else. Quantum physics reveals a basic oneness of the universe. Multiplicity is only apparent; in truth; there is only one mind. - Erwin Schrodinger "The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own. But it certainly does not become manifest by its mere existence." -Erwin Schrodinger We are saying that matter is derived from our consciousness. This is why people create religion and ritual and belief. Our conscious willful participation affects the outcome in our lives exactly the way that the sole act of observation changes outcome in QM experiments. We all have access to a collective consciousness, one mind. This is so profound it takes a while to see it all, it takes thought to open your mind. Later you will see more than you see now.
How is it that an observer who is just a fields and particles is somehow independent of the environment, which is just fields and particles, being observed? The idea of collapse is unsupported. Why is collapse needed if I can get the results from the SE equation without it? Is information magically being destroyed by erasing other states and selecting one upon "collapse"?
But what is this "first non-wave object?" Every object it could encounter is either a particle, meaning it's actually a wave, or it's made up of particles, and hence made up of waves.
@@johndough23 Soap bubbles of influence... expanding no faster than the speed of light, within which the superpositions exist. Intersections of these bubbles containing each combination of superpositions or the bubbles that met. This is actually my personal interpretation of quantum mechanics, mainly based on Many Worlds. I didn't necessarily refer to them as "soap bubbles, but I did still use the word "bubble."
@@angeldude101 Soap bubbles are waves snort...they hit the ceiling and explode. The point being made is matter is NEVER a wave, so what are they measuring? People get too caught up in the visuals. 🌊 Waves do not even have to be moving to be waves.. Hench the energy inside a balloon. Trapped until the time the coating goes away and liberates 🌊
a wave IS a measurement description, not a thing. Nothing is collapsing. The problem with a double slit exp is they never define what a MARK is. Is it like a skid mark in your shorts indicating a load went by? or the load itself? who knows it varies and is not even a wave, its poop.
Great question - the nucleus certainly influences the possible wave functions the system can be in. If we compare the wave functions of a free electron to an electron bound to a nucleus, they are different. But I don't know if this counts as collapse, I need to read more into this. Thanks for asking!
May be its bohr radius and strong nuclear force its prevent from collapse the nucleus .If electron collapse around the muscles question about Rydberg atomic spectra
You stick a classical potential in, then solve the partial differential equation and then you stick the resulting wave function into the Born rule. What's so hard about that?
@@joshuatorres3342 No, not really. It won't help you much, though, because there are very few systems for which this procedure gives the correct result, even if you can solve the differential equation, which in most cases you can't. :-)
It's not an isolated wave when it's "measured" but two waves (particles) interacting: where the two waves touch, they both "collapse" at that position (they alter each other, they entangle each other). That's all.
@@schmetterling4477 - On one side "particle" only means "little part" (Latin: pars > particula), in the sense of "small component", "tiny piece". We usually make it mean "little dot-like object" but that's not what they are, at least not necessarily so. On the other side, they do behave as "little dots" when interacted with, hence wave-particle duality, which is certainly ambiguous on how the "particle" segment should be interpreted (but I think a quantum wave is also a particle, a tiny part, just that not dot-like). So what we observe is an apparent change of state between wave and dot. However this is only inferred from statistical data, the wave does not manifest in any wave with single particles, only with sets of particles, so I'm beginning to ponder if the wave state of the particle is actually a collective phenomenon only (this would fit in with the pilot wave theory but I'm not particularly enthusiastic about it regardless).
@@schmetterling4477 - They are discrete, therefore they are objects or instances or whatever you want to call them. There's not 1.37 electrons: theres one electron, two electrons, etc. Quantumness implies "particle" in the sense of "little part" (unitary, indivisible, fundamental).
@@LuisAldamiz That's why we call it QUANTUM field theory. It still doesn't mean that an electron is a thing. It only means that you can't change the electron field by less than one quantum of an electron. That's the difference between classical physics and quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics you could differentiate between individual objects. In quantum mechanics there is only one "object", the physical vacuum, but it can only change its properties by discrete units.
Since I am running out options to convince you; it is light traveling with the time, but not changing time. In case you know “why”, then you may know the foundation of our modern physics is created, not physically real!
This whole superposition thing seems like the gambler's fallacy. A coin isn't in all positions until flipped. And a second coin's probability of landing heads or tails does not effect nor is affected by the results from other coin flips. Seems only logical these measurements catalog the abundance of different particle types rather than potential of poping into existence. Right? You can't measure a particle twice. Since every particle Isn't interconnected the state meerly measured that particle. It was whatever the probability said.
One coin isn't, but the average of an infinite repetition of the coin toss experiment is in superposition. Probability distributions describe statistical ensembles and quantum mechanical wave functions describe quantum mechanical ensembles. There is nothing hard to understand here. One can simply not predict the outcome of an individual coin toss and one can't predict the outcome of an individual quantum experiment, either. We can, however, predict probabilities and averages. It's the mathematical ensemble that is in superposition. The individual physical system isn't. Superposition is a mathematical property that is CONSTRUCTED by the way we axiomatize the expectation value of ensembles of independent experiments. One can derive both quantum mechanics and probability theory from Kolmogorov's axioms. The main difference is simply a slightly different partition of one in one step of the derivation.
How can we tell the difference between the wave function collapsing vs. the detector just reporting one state while not necessarily affecting the state of what's being measured?
Great question! There's a lovely video linked in the description that goes into more mathematical detail about this. However a brief explanation is that each of these scenarios (collapse vs. information gain) predict slightly different probabilities for each possible measurement result. Basically, we have observed that when we make measurements on what we think are identical quantum states, we seem to get different measurement results. So one way of explaining this is wave function collapse. The other is that the states aren't actually identical, but rather we have a mixture of different states that we just pick randomly from, that we think are identical. Then when we measure one of them, we just find out what state it's in. However each of these scenarios predicts slightly different probabilities of each possible measurement result, which we can test experimentally by repeating the experiment lots and lots of times. Upon doing this, we've so far found that the probabilities predicted by wave function collapse are a much better match for our experimental results than a "statistical mixture of states"!
@@ParthGChannel Thank you for the long response. What I'm actually wondering is if perhaps the collapse could occur in the detector but not in the measured system, where the detector reports a discrete state while the system remains in superposition or changes to a different superposition. As high gain amplifiers, do detectors ever lie to us and give us unrealistically crisp views of the world?
@@theosib - What actually happens in a quantum measurement is that the wave-function of the measurement device becomes entangled with the wave-function of the measured system. (Recall that it is not possible to make a quantum measurement without "disturbing" the thing that is being measured.) The result of this mutual entanglement is the "collapse" postulated by the Copenhagen Interpretation. Thus, any collapse experienced by the measurement device will be simultaneously experienced by the measured system, since at the point of measurement, they share the same entangled wave-function.
I have heard that the collapse of the wave function does not conserve energy. I’m not quite sure what this means. Can you please bring clarity to this issue. Thank you
When physicist say the energy is not conserved it usually just means in the mathematics what we define as energy changes in time making it not a constant. We can say that if the hamiltonian does not explicitly depend on time energy is constant/conserved but when the wave function collapses that statement is not longer true. I'm sure there is a more rigorous explanation but that is a general sense what what it means
also it makes sense because when a 'measurement' is made, we interact with the wave function usually adding or subtracting energy in the process so if we define the system to only be the wave function then in that system energy is not conserved due to the measurement. (Take this with a grain of salt lol)
A superposition of states seems not possible. If you need to predictic wich energy level an electron is in a particular moment you cant assume is "all the possibility at once" since this would require the electron to have highest energy level 100 + half energy level 50 + lowest energy level 25 = highest energy level plus an extra 75 at the same time... This would require the electron to be able to carry more energy then the highest energy level aviable in the system... it doesnt make much sense
But if it's in every energy level, than each level wouldn't have access to all the energy of the system. It'd be 100 * chance of 100 + 50 * chance of 50 + 25 * chance of 25.
Okie dokie paused video. Here we go again, right mate? 😅 I mean. Collapse. Eigenvalues. Superposition, but since this comes from, let's say, classic statistics.. It is a question of we using, need to use this math cause we can't get one particle observed without pulling it out of the wave function. So at the end we get this rho density Matrix and it shows the "real thing 😅" the "movement" of the particles but it's a collection of lots of them like in industry and mass production of hmmm. Needles. Sewing needles. Lots. Can't do quality control for every single Needle and it's necessary to use statistical mechanics as in quantum. May you live long and stuff /🤓🖖🖖🖖 Good work. Now I'm going to press play 🖖🖖🖖🤓/
For starters we know that there are no particles. There are only quanta of energy. A quantum of energy can only be detected where a detector is. That's a known position... we put the detector there. ;-)
Why can't wave functions and spacetime be made of the same thing? The fact that we have trouble telling the difference between what exists and what is a relationship between things that exist shouldn't fool us into thinking that there isn't something down there that establishes a relationship between two things, and we can capture it and put it in an experimental fixture in a lab.
The collapse of the wave function is what underlies the Weeping Angels in Doctor Who. If you're not looking at them them could be anywhere but if you look at them they freeze into statues.
Because unlike idealists, scientists are actually conscious, and thus possess the cognitive capacity to not posit magic to explain things they are difficult to explain.
@@amihartzno, your ego is just afraid To admit you’ll never understand or master this reality. You all lack emotional intelligence. Academia is SCARED to its core about consiousness because everything will then fall apart for them and their fragile ass egos.
The Schrodinger's cat will still never make sense to me. It helped me understand the concept of superposition but it still baffles me. Even though we dont know whether the cat is dead or alive, the cat IS either dead or alive BEFORE we actually look into the box. It already is in one of these states regardless of our observation. So should the electrons be right? Like the system obviously exists and follows patterns that are predicted by the probability. The system obviously exists without us having to observe it, so the electron has to be in one of the three states even before we measure each one. I know he literally explained that mathematically the superposition equation ended up being more precise, but in the field of common sense, i just cant wrap my head around it
Whether or not the cat is alive or dead, either you open the box and see it dead, or you look in the box and see it alive. If the cat was in a superposition, would this really collapse it, or would it just push it up another level treating the experiment and observer as just another box?
Schrodinger was sort of saying, in his own way that we do not understand. That was 90 years ago. Damn. Nobel prize 2022 was just awarded one week ago to three men for proving that there are no hidden variables in quantum mechanics. This means we are able to share information instantaneously between any two points in the universe. This also means Einstein was wrong, God does "play dice." and there is a such thing as spooky action at a distance.
@@toomanydonuts This is in part why various interpretations of quantum mechanics exist. They each attempt to explain the math in a way that makes sense to the people using it. These interpretations also have different priorities, so some try to recover locality (no instant information transfer) or determinacy (God not playing dice). Usually to get these qualities back, you need to sacrifice other desirable qualities. The most popular interpretation that is both local and deterministic is also one of the most alien conceptually.
@@angeldude101 You have been debunked. That is utter nonsense . You play sore loser like DJT, OK you won. Most people don't agree with you. You want to vote on it?
@@angeldude101 Are you a stable genius too? Those three men are life long physicists who worked on Bell's theory 150 years between the three of them. You need to learn to do the math, shut up and calculate.
Parth thank you, meanwhile ( humor me I am trying to develop my own intuition on this topic), if the particle was a bouncing tennis ball inside a room: in a strange way maybe the mathematical model enables us to describe the ball even better than the classical sense of seeing/measuring we possess? The ball is everywhere the same way if we had extra dimensional senses we would see the ball in extra dimensions so the ball 'appears' everywhere at once when actually it is the same ball seen in every position it will have/has/ever been.
Cause is easy to contaminate (better than a probability distribution). Physics is 100% math, and they actually derive cause from THAT hasty math description. They don't derive an understanding of cause and then describe that cause with math. Imagine if medicine described symptoms with math and only derived cause from that math. They smashed cells into each other and observed what flew out, then described that with math. That is modern physics. Math can be analogous and wrong, and modern physics will never second-guess math. It is a very entrenched paradigm that no one is going to see. Look at my LATEST gyro video to see that angular momentum DOES NOT exist. The cause is something you have not seen yet.
er, **quantum** Physics you mean!! Normal solid-state Physics is the study of rigid matter, or solids, through methods such as solid-state chemistry, crystallography, electromagnetism, and metallurgy. you can see a crystal forming, chemicals change things, play with magnets, mix molten metals to make something new... yes, there is math, but also proven evidence... lots of math is no way to prove anything, just theories!!
I guess a measurement could be defined by the crossing of two entities' paths through spacetime. Also, after thinking about that "quantum bomb detector" thing and superposition, I don't think these observations are odd at all. Photons are not subject to time, because they move at the speed of light. That's also why c is constant. Without time, there is no velocity tha can be added to that of a photon. Also without time, all possible setups of these photon experiments are equal options and exist next to each other. Without time, everything happens at the same time and causality becomes probability. An analogy for the wave function collapse could be one where we measure anything for an unlimited amount of time. After that we compress the data into a single moment. That means we see all measurements together and only know their probability. There is no reason to assume that our data should predict the outcome of the next measurement we make. Still, all possible measurements do occur at some point, when they were measured. One photon goes right, the next one left, and then a couple go right and some left again. But without time, it's just like looking at the recorded data and calculating the average. Whis is exactly what happens when we see an interference pattern after firing a quadrillion photons at the measurement device(screen). When we use a different measuring device and place it next to the slits, the photons dont change behaviour. From their perspective hitting the detector at the slits is just an alternative option just as reasonable as hitting the screen. They just interact with it like they interact with the screen. Both at the same time. Because they are not subject to time. But we are. It's as if we observe the measurement process of one sample in that study that goes on for unlimited time and get surprised when we find out about a different sample that exists next to the first one we saw. Of course this is not a scientific descrption. But for example the many world interpretation doesn't sound alot more plausible either. Im sure we can describe and understand quantum behaviour with existing words in our human language. Also, I'm not smart, so at least half of the underlying information for my interpretation is probably not even correct
It can't. It's removed from the system. That's a measurement in this branch of physics. Gets an eigen value. Wrll, with lots of those, we get the tendency and that's it, mostly.
superposition is always with respect to a particular set (a basis) of state vectors. So a pure state in a particular basis can be viewed as a superposition in another. For example spin up in the Z direction is a superposition of spin right an spin left in the X direction.
@@christianthom5148 Now that is interesting! I'm going to have to think about what this means for bit. I brought up this point of 'a particle going back into superposition' because it felt pretty glossed over in the video. Whereas the point where a particle goes from superposition to 'single position' was much more focused on. My gut reaction is that both of these transitions must have similar properties (reverse time symmetry?). And I just want to know more.
@SuperTanner1 Polarising a photon in a certain way. That sounds interesting! For instance, in the double slit experiment, could you observe the photon, getting information about which slit it went thru, then apply this tech to give it superposition again?
It is the quantum state that carries all the information about the system, not the properly speaking wave function which describes only the position of the particle.
Yeah but why only position, if we take inner product of state with momentum operator it would contain all information about momentum and so for any other observable quantity? Or am I wrong?
@@piyushgalav6483 It is just a question of terminology : from what I understand, the "state" (generally noted with ket vectors |s>) contains all informations, and the wave function only the position information extracted from the state by the application of position operator. For example you can't obtain the spin from the wave function. It is true that that the two are frequently mixed up.
@@piyushgalav6483 Yes, exactly, but not from psi(x) which is the wave function. From what I read in wikipedia, I see that it is linked to the interpretation of QM you favor, and some call the state "wave function", so you can be right from the beginning, but it seems to me confusing and I prefer to distinguish the two concepts.
According to the uncertainty principle, it would take infinite amount of energy for the wave function to collapse “instantly”. Thus I don’t agree with the idea of instant collapse. But who knows since the uncertainty principle is just a property of Schrodinger equation…
@@schmetterling4477 yes it can be expressed through mathematical operator, but it’s a property of QM so I’d say it’s very physical. There’s nothing wrong about saying “uncertainty principle forbids instant collapse”. That’s just a result of energy-time uncertainty principle. Btw I am a Bachelor of Physics sooooo…
@@user-rc3fj2jh5f It isn't physical. You can't run red light through a tiny aperture and get blue light out. You simply don't understand the phenomenology and how it connects to the theory. BTW, I am retired physics PhD. So that's that, kid. :-)
@@schmetterling4477 yes you can’t so what? How does it have anything to do with our problem here? So you think it is possible for an event to happen strictly instantly? And the uncertainty principle doesn’t forbid it?
@@schmetterling4477 i think the way you think of the uncertainty principle might be too complicated and unnecessary. It’s simply the upper limit of the precision of any physical measurement. In order to measure infinitesimal time, the energy uncertainty would be infinitely large, which makes the average magnitude of energy also be infinite.
आपको हिंदी आतीं हैं ? तो जवाब जरूर दे आखिर waves function collapse होने का कारण क्या है ? ये हमारी चेतना से होता है या कोई और कारण है क्योंकि मेंने decohras का भी अध्ययन किया है many worlds interpretation का भी ये भी सही नहीं है फिर क्या कारण हो सकता है ?
Quantum mechanics is not weird at all if you just deny that "probability waves" even exist. They are a product of one very specific mathematical formalism by Schrodinger, but there are several different mathematical formalisms for quantum mechanics that do not have these waves. The original formulation of quantum mechanics was actually by Heisenberg and utilized matrices. If we interpret quantum mechanics from that perspective, then there is no "probability waves," just particles with discontinuous motion, and thus nothing to "collapse" and no measurement problem. Additionally, you do not run into the need for nonlocality, for hidden variables, for having to posit a multiverse, and you do not even run into a contradiction with philosophical realism. These all arise from believing probability waves literally exist as real entities.
Anything at all can be proven when there is a contradiction, like energy with the adjectives potential and kinetic increasedecreasing, because without the law of non-contradiction, the opposite to any valid argument is equally justified.
Linear force at 'c' with deviations of transverse sine waves carrying energy loop 🔁into the electron orbit of atoms to be completely absorbed via the portel. Typical wave collapse. Else, the cowboys🐂👦 lasso is an example.
Any action a particle experiences that forces it to "commit" to a particular state is a measurement of that state. Unfortunately, we've inherited these words from the old days when it would be best to move on to better terminology that isn't so confusing.
It is the big mystery. It is clearly linked to interactions, but this part of QM just observe that measurements are possible, without asking to much questions about the details of the operation...
It doesn't. You can't program quantum mechanics with logic (which is a commutative algebra). You need a non-commutative algebra to express quantum mechanics. You need to learn physics and more math. ;-)
It is more accurate to say no physicists has ever seen a "probability wave" in the first place, and thus could not see such a thing "collapse." The existence of these waves is a metaphysical construct which are a product of one particular mathematical formalism by Schrodinger, and does not even exist in Heisenberg's matrix formalism.
Copenhagen interpretation is a brief physicist way of saying we have no idea of what going on, none of it makes sense so let's just shut up and calculate and never talk about this. For this sole reason I think the progress in physics has stalled and some of the public has created mystical, pseudo-scientific interpretation out of these ideas that they take comfort in.
The problem is that the public goes even wilder and more mystical when you talk about many worlds, the simplest (and IMO the best) model that actually tries to explain how this all works. Like people talk about being able to go to the alternate world of hogwarts if they wish hard enough.
@@nujuat Yeah ikr it makes me cringe when I listen to them. Listening to physicist talk about interpretations of qm like sean caroll and others I realized how much the interpretations are mathematically motivated than mystically presented to the public by some articles and people.
I agree. The concept of collapse is unsupported and is not even needed to understand the outcomes. How are they justifying an observer who is made of fields and particles to be independent of the evironment they are observing?
@@schmetterling4477 I'm talking about the theoretical prediction of probability of measuring an energy eigenvalue (assuming the Hamiltonian has a discrete set of eigenvalues) that quantum mechanics gives. According to QM, the probabillity of obtaining an energy E in state psi if measurement is made is given by the so-called overlap rule and this is not necessarily equal to the square modulus of the wave function.
The universe is 13.8 billion years old. The wave function collapse has only been an issue for a little more than a century. Prior to that, neither observations nor measurements on this phenomenon were being made. Makes you think, huh??
More like trying to measure a tennis ball randomly bouncing of the walls of a dark room. You try to hit it with a baseball bat (so called "measurement") now you know where it is but you just disturbed it's momentum and you can only calculate the probability of finding that tennis ball at a particular spot in the room.
@@rk99688 of course it's in a dark room since "seeing" the ball would in effect "measure" it's position and momentum. But in detail true to form, I posit that hitting the ball with a bat reveals its momentum only. A camera with a flash reveals only its position. The fancy equations tell us probabilities. How is qm different?
@@notlessgrossman163 Where qm differs is before the baseball hitting. Where we know the ball must be coming in your direction but in qm the ball is in superposition of being everywhere in the room. Until you swing the bat and the probability of the ball existing in that location where you swung is high then you will likely hit it.
@@rk99688 in that dark room it's true I would not know where exactly the ball is, but if I did a large number of swings I may notice a pattern, a distribution of the ball/room system. Eg I drop the ball from the ceiling, I swing enough times I will notice a repeating pattern at a specific location and timing. Soon I have an equation that describes a bouncing ball - which would be a kind of harmonic oscillator.. But whenever I hit that ball or snap a photo with flash, I'm gonna call it spooky superposition and a wave function that collapses
@@notlessgrossman163 Yeah you are right is classical sense but when the ball is drop from a ceiling and you swing the bat enough times you won't notice a pattern cause you will hit it at random times. When you hit it that's where the ball exists before that it was everywhere that is what is weird. Really what I think is going on is that to make a measurement there has to be an interaction between two quantum mechanical objects and that collapses that wavefunction. We need to understand that interaction more deeply.
Because physics starts with a number of concepts and definitions that have legalese character. One has to learn these really well first. Most students gloss over the details and are then confused that nothing seems to make sense. And they are right. The version that they remember does not make sense. Only the original phrasing that they didn't care to study in great detail does.
You do talk well and deliver right points. But you'd be a terrible teacher. "We already showed, that..." and you say just a random statement of yours not backed up by anything substantial.
@Will 'Slap' Smith I don’t expect a lot of spiritual people under a science video obvi but I’m someone into science and the spiritual realm and my relationship with Jehovah God but I know that’s too much for people who only believe blindly in science 🧬 😂 ✌🏽
It is endlessly fascinating and entertaining to me how the materialist religion ties itself in knots to avoid understanding what Reason is telling them. They would rather inject mystery and mysticism into the universe by asserting that experimentally, intersubjectively verifiable results, and logically sound theory, "just work but don't make sense," than consider accepting what the math and experimental verification is telling them, because what it is telling them contradicts a world view they don't want to change. 🤌🤌🤌
