This might be quite a strech, but maybe this experiment can also explain spin. There are two components acting in the system: the droplet and the wave. The angular momentum from the droplet would be the 'classical' orbital angular momentum and the additional angular momentum from the standing wave could be the spin angular momentum. Quantization of the standing wave and frequency harmonics between the droplet and the wave might be able to explain why spin is limited to whole numbers and fractions.

+Tempus0 Thanks for your comment, but I guess it is indeed quite a stretch. ;-) Spin is an inherent property of a quantum particle, independent of what potential it is confined to. A freely walking droplet would need to exhibit some spin-like features without the help of the effects coming from the surface wave interacting with the boundaries of a confinement (such as the experiment where there seem to appear "orbitals" in a quantum dot). While it is interesting to look for classical systems that exhibit quantum-like behavior, it's important to stress that there cannot be a classical theory that truly explains quantum mechanics. In simple terms "you cannot get rid of the weirdness in quantum mechanics". This fell a bit short in the video, I think. He seems to suggest at some point that you have the choice between "believing" in the deterministic pilot wave theory (in its original form), or the Copenhagen interpretation. You don't (x). (x) A classical theory must obey Einstein's principle of local realism. However, a result known as the Bell-Kochen-Specker theorem shows that no non-contextual local hidden variable theory is consistent with quantum mechanics. This has been demonstrated to be true in a variety of experiments. So, the pilot wave theory as presented in this video cannot replace quantum mechanics. But that wasn't the intention. The intention was to visualize some quantum phenomena in understandable classical terms. If you don't feel comfortable with the non-determinism of the Copenhagen interpretation, there is only one other consistent interpretation that I know of, and that's Bohmian Mechanics (or the de-Broglie-Bohm theory). It is deterministic and uses some kind of pilot waves, but it has the drawback of being contextual: For entangled systems, the measurement results in one apparatus depends instantaneously on the *settings of* the other apparatuses, no matter how far they are apart. In short, you're stuck either with collapsing wave functions, or with particles that can "feel" what's going on at any moment everywhere else in the universe. :-)

Thanks for the explaination. My point is that in de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory, the waves are real. That open the possibility of assigning physical properties to the waves. A classical experiment will of course never fully represent quantum mechanics, but this experiment shows that there could be some comparisons between quantum mechanics and fluid mechanics. This is an interesting and so far (to my knowledge) unexplored new path. The weakness of the de Broglie-Bohm is of course that these pilot waves have never been verified in experiments. The Copenhagen interpretation has it's own short comings such as requiring the act of observation to collapses the wave function without being able to define what an observation or measurement is. Bell-Kochen-Specker theorem is about entangled systems, which I think have been a weakness of both theories. Regarding entanglement, I think Susskind's latest works on the topic is quite interesting. He also proposed some good arguments against the Copenhagen interpretations' 'observations' in that paper. A recommended read if you haven't done so already. Personally, I haven't paid to much attention to the standard interpretations of quantum mechanics. I've always preferred quantum field theory by Julian Schwinger.

+Tempus0 Cheers, I was unaware of the ER=EPR idea as I'm "out of the business" for a couple of years now. Very fancy, but sounds interesting! As for the understanding of measurements, there have been a lot more insights from POVM theory, partly driven by the advent of quantum information processing and the study of decoherence in solid-state systems. Which is where I was working in. Basically the universe is associated with one giant wavefunction evolving according to the Schrödinger equation and all subsystems (including the measurement devices) undergo state transitions. But still, there is some randomness involved...

Thanks for that information. I'm curious how we can be certain that spin is an inherent property of a quantum particle, rather than originating from a surface wave analog. Given that the analogy presented here probably cannot fully capture reality, I still wonder what quantum phenomenon (if any) might represented by the water surface here. Is it conceivable that whatever is represented by the water surface (Higgs field?) could impart spin to new particles?

he had an intro

It seems his later vids have longer intros. Or maybe because his recent videos are just more complicated.

Intro was so seamless & succinct, I seemed not to see it as well as Mr S. Morris stated.

Intros are to play into the algorithm, it's something that has to be done at least occasionally

@@thethirdjegs they all do longer videos now to have better monetization by the algorithms of UKposts. I believe must be over 10 minutes. It's a pity, shorter videos without useless fillings are the best.

good analogy i rate it 10 watermelons out of 2 iron bars

@@happysongs4kyrone Ah, a man of culture

Even caveman understood "Fire Hot!!!" Give ourselves more credit.

This video had zero to do with electricity . One unit of electrification is called a Planck , not an electron . And is the crossing point of a transverse magnetic wave and a longitudinal dielectric wave crossing at right angles to one another and is one unit of electrification .

I guess it's a good analogy until someone goes out of their way to take it literally lol

Yeah same. I will never know peace

As someone already explained and Veritasium said so, it looks the same but it is not the same. For me, it does not explain the measurement, observer problem. Does it?

@@logic8673 No it doesn't. Bell's inequality does and decoherence theory does.

I mean is it that hard to imagine tho,just imagine a sperm cell but replace the head with a dot,simple stuff honestly

@@logic8673 My question about the observer problem is whether the mechanics of observation becomes interferant enough to disrupt the particles path along the pilot wave, or possibly disrupt the pilot wave itself before passing through one of the slits.

I laughed out loud at this and then was asked what I was laughing at. It's awkward trying to explain quantum mechanics to someone so they understand a joke

I laughed out loud at this and then was asked what I was laughing at. It's awkward trying to explain quantum mechanics in under 10 seconds to someone who just wants a quick joke

+Copenhagen-Pilot Wave Duality. 10/10 I vote you for the Nobel prize

thanks I just spit soda everyplace...and no place at the same time 😎

+Crypto Joker did you manage to observe it, without the soda behaving differently?

How does the pilot wave interpretation handle entanglement?

So the interactions would go backwards in time?

+

I am not physicist but isn't faster than light interaction impossible according to Relativity theory? By the way, I like your videos and this video is great, but I am going with Copenhagen interpretation.

I remember some article suggested that for entanglement to be possible the fluid should allow infinite sound speed

And you seriously thought that 2 hours is enough for quantum theory? 😂

Robin Nixon And for me "aaaaaaAAAHHHH" provoking. My brain don't think, it just screams when I watch these videos.

Robin Nixon you should watch pbs space time.

true

anubhav rai what??

eyad gomid truely true

Pilot waves were first proposed by Louis de Broglie 1927.

Yes, I do like the Pilot Wave theory, thanks Ve and "first REPLY person".

​@@UnlistedAccountit was then picked up again by bohm in the 50s

It's "bald" but that made me laugh out loud

This is the single best joke I have ever seen in a youtube comment. It's also true... That photo is eery

How do you know if someone doesn’t understand quantum physics? They say they understand quantum physics!

Brooooo!!

You, Sir, have won the internet!

Nah I feel something similar, wether it's correct or not in the end it is simply intuitive

Pilot wave does not explain why the double-slit experiment results in no interference pattern if one measures which slit the electron went through. It is mainly a visual represantation.

@@achdetoni5008 Slightly different phenomena, it is due to hesnburgs uncertainty principle which comments on our ability to measure a microscopic object without disturbing it. Given that these particles are much larger we can observe them without disturbing them.

@@giles4565 Dude, you can't even write Heisenberg, it shows that you never looked up what you are talking about.

@@achdetoni5008 Grammar is a brilliant rebuttal to any argument, as always.

"Any uncertainty is due to our ignorance" (5:02) ) is actually a reflection of Einstein's (and David Bohm's) Hidden-variables theory in which they state that the quantum mechanics is an incomplete description of reality; there are hidden variables (not known to us yet) that cause the results to be probabilistic and not deterministic. Had we known these hidden variables, the results would be deterministic and not probabilistic. Einstein objected the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics declaring "I am convinced God does not play dice". (Bell's theorem would later suggest that local hidden variables of certain types - a possible way for finding a complete description of reality - are impossible without introducing non-locality into the picture. This would contradict Einstein's cosmic speed limit which is the speed of light.)

@@biljanapercinkova318, the experimental demonstration that Bell's Inequality does not hold in our cosmos does indeed rule out the most trivial kinds of hidden variables. In particular, the hidden variable cannot be a property that is a constant in time. The hidden variable must at least be some time-varying property. Moreover, we must also discard the simplifying assumption that time-keeping is the same everywhere and everywhen in the cosmos, so that a single scalar parameter, t, would otherwise have sufficed to specify the time (or age) of all particles in a set of correlated (e.g. "entangled") particles. We know (from both Einstein's theories and actual measurements with precision atomic clocks) that time-keeping is local, so that distant particles age (e.g. oscillate) at their own idiosyncratic rates. They manifestly do not remain in any kind of perfect phase-locked synchrony. Once we abandon such simplifying assumptions, we realize that the (time-varying) hidden variables no longer perfectly cancel out in the middle of Bell's derivation. Instead, we are confronted with a non-vanishing "beat frequency" term. That is, the not-so-hidden variable is time itself. Rather than "spooky action at a distance" we really have not-so-spooky time-keeping at a distance. This is why Bell's Inequality does not hold in our cosmos.

@@BarryKort Love your answer, that’s wonderful, no spooky action on distance of course. As Wittgenstein would say, everything is here for us to see. Roger Penrose’s example is also indicative - two balls, black and white, wrapped in boxes; two friends each one having a box. One of them travels to Boston, opens his box and discovers he has the black ball. Immediately (without spooky action) he knows that his friend has the white one - their local time preserved. I shall certainly quote you in the next edition of my book „102 Hours with Charles Berner - Small Amount the Heart Has Managed to Remember“ (www.amazon.com/s?k=percinkova&ref=nb_sb_nos. I discuss there “the beat frequency“ mentioned in your comment in regard to muon particle, together with some easy math.) Rightly you emphasize "in our cosmos". It seems very Gödel-like to me that Einstein’s hidden variable (meant to preserve his local reality and speed limit being the speed of light) might be the Time itself - and Einstein remains the greatest master of Time. He was certainly aware of the confines of “t” in science when he wrote about NOW. Lee Smolin in his book “Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe” says: "…More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general relativity are both deeply wrong about the nature of time. It is not enough to combine them. There is a deeper problem, perhaps going back to the beginning of physics."

@@biljanapercinkova318, when Bell published his inequality in 1964. Einstein was long dead so he was not there to point out Bell's unrealistic simplifying assumption. Worse yet, Bell's paper languished unnoticed for at least another decade. The obscure journal that published it only lasted for that one volume before going defunct. What baffles me is that once Bell's paper resurfaced, why did no one point out that his derivation only works for hidden variables which are constant (i.e. not time-varying). After all, the locality of time-keeping was reasonably well known by the 1970s.

Jeremy Mettler - WTF?

Lutra Nereis i most like this One but superposition is coller

Thank you. Could not have put it better myself.

If double slit experiment doesn't baffle you, it's not good news

If the double slit experiment doesn't baffle you, look up the delayed choice quantum eraser.

Kanglar Yes, that one still baffles me. XD

The Copenhagen folks were big into irony like that. They claim that information is conserved, but upon observation, the integral plog p dx where p is |Psi(x)| squared, being the entropy of a continuous distribution, is clearly changed. The Born rule is also, notably, totally in contradiction with the Shrodinger equation, and both are supposed to dictate the time evolution of a system, but no one can say exactly which one to use when unless we use weaselly language like "measurement", which no one can clearly define. I've been done with Copenhagen for a long, long time. I've moved on to Everett's many worlds. It sounds crazy until someone explains exactly what it is; it's the application of Occam's razor to Copenhagen, there is no collapse, there is no Born rule, only the Shrodinger equation and decoherence. There's no "splitting" or "branching", there's no world where the whole universe is shrimp. Just the Shrodinger equation, which describes the time evolution of the wavefunction at all times, and decoherence, which determines what parts of the wavefunction can interact and which cannot. I'm very close to being certain.

If you think that’s nuts, just wait, the wacky-doodle-screwball nature of reality in terms of quantum mechanics just gets messier, here’s a goodie Quantum mechanics is, according to itself, “free of hidden variables” in its Except it not only uses them, it ends up _creating them_ in the process

Aussie?

@@timrattenbury5321 does it matter?

The content's awesome anyways,right?

"The layer never shrinks to about 100 nm which is required for the drop to recombine with the oil" Drop recombines with oil 0:30

Tis the power of the wavefunction collapse

And this is only a small part of quantum mechanics! A lot still can't be visualized

Too bad the wave function collapse messes it up...

Too bad the scientific community wants to shove Copenhagen down everyone’s throats and dedicate little to no funds to researching the possibility of bohmian mechanics further. I predict that 1000s of years from now our lack of following this possibility will be looked back on as one of humanity’s greatest blunders.

@@alexleung842 I mean, has that not been the scientific community's problem since, well, forever. Even the best and brightest have a tendency to ignore the blatant flaws in a theory and preach it as fact leading to even more people listening and doing the same. An appropriate example being Einsteins refusal to accept the limitations of classical mechanics.

What's so wrong about background music lmao

watch?v=W6WO5XabD-s

1:13

Pandu Poluan whether or not the deterministic principle is an actual product of quantum mechanics is left to debate, but if it is in fact deterministic then maybe the theory of everything can be formed with unification.

Paused the video at 3:10 to comment on this, scrolled down and saw you already had. Replying to save for future reference.

man you just stole my world and I totally agree with you especially that because it removes the random aspect something that annoyed me for a long time and make understanding this subject a lot harder for me its never make any since for me. random position how can it be?? after this video I can relief my mined from this subject ...... well not really its a theory after all

Nature is under no obligation to make sense to you. Science is about what is actually true and isn't about what you prefer to be true.

Physicists don't study the universe, and any physicist that says they do is dramatically simplifying things for you. A physicist studies models of the universe. They routinely test these models for predictive accuracy, but in the end, physics is a descriptive study that has no tools for describing why or how the universe operates, only what it might do next. This is why most of determined physics has laws, not theory. The question is not "why does the apple fall toward the ground?" but "how can I model that fall, given what I can measure?"

not so sure pilot wave theories are the standard way to teach. We certainly talk about wave-particle duality and wave functions, but when it comes to "what's really going on," the idea that particles are bouncing on waves and being deflected is less well taught

There is no majority interpretation. Copenhagen is adopted by about 40% of academia. I believe it is followed by the Informational and Many Worlds interpretations

Going through physical chemistry in a university right now, and the Copenhagen interpretation is what we're going with despite its problems but because of its usefulness in explaining chemical experiments such as different methods of spectroscopy.

I'm studying physics at uni and Copenhagen is definitely the mainstream interpretation. The pilot wave theory may make you feel better about quantum mechanics at first, but actually doing calculations with it is so ridiculously difficult that everyone uses Schrodinger's equation. Which interpretation you like is up to you, as the interpretations all predict the same results. The only difference is that the pilot wave theory is incredibly clumsy mathematically.

Veritasium Well they wouldn't teach about electrons bouncing on waves, but rather riding then in 3D space. Also, pilot wave theory may be correct, but it is not useful to talk about unless we find the capability to observe the whole universe. The initial wave can be thought of as a seed for a pseudo-random number generator, which will appear random to the observer unless the seed is known to that observer. From knowing the whole state of the universe, and with enough computational power we should be able to find the initial conditions of the wave.

@@DrDeuteron Maybe but I am talking about a lack of inspiration. A trigger, if you will. Some people are inspired by reading but others are inspired by visual representation.

@@DrDeuteron Hey buddy, first of all quantum is notoriously incomprehensible, to the point that Feynman himself joked nobody who thought they understood it actually did. How about you don’t go around putting people down for benefitting from a mental model that helps them understand a concept better? Nobody is saying this video is a full understanding of QM, it’s a damn learning tool. If I went and told you that you’d never make it in the field if you’ve ever represented an electron as a dot in a Lewis structure because they’re actually waves, or if you’ve ever used any model whatsoever for that matter, you’d rightfully look at me like I’m a facetious idiot. Stop being that guy, they’re learning tools, not full pictures.

@@DrDeuteronI see, youre very brilliant. Didnt even recognize he talked about being inspired as a kid/teenager and has nothing to do with learning itself. But keep on destroying ppls motivation for no reason to keep your self confidence high.

@@DrDeuteron Dude what are u doing here instead being in a lab,research center or whatever! Get Outta here ,you highly intelligent,dominating freak😂. This is common man's space

@@DrDeuteron then its not the right way and I hope you were treated better.

Can I get a shoutout from Derek! You would make my day man. And a question if I could ask one, how smart can we get? (This may be more a VSauce-esque question but I think it would be a cool topic).

This experiments can reproduce the "complete" double slit experiment, i mean, when the "particles" (droplets) are "measured" they do NOT produce an interference pattern?

Could you explain why the droplet crossed the barrer and what are those barrers made of? Thanks :)

obviously not, measuring the particle would mean "observing" it's position, by any means - which we are doing by just looking at the surface they're bouncing on. the pilot-wave interpretation doesn't work the way the copenhagen-interpretation works, observation and measurement have not the "dramatic" influence there, although every physical measurement would certainly interfere to a certain extend it would not lead to the destruction of the droplets quatum-esque behaviour

shoutout man! And I will think about how smart we can get, maybe for a new video with Michael...

but... pilot wave theories are explicitly non-local, meaning they require interactions faster than the speed of light. This is because they take the position that objects really exist when you're not looking at them. Statistical interpretations try to get around this by denying the existence (or otherwise ignoring) what's happening when you're not measuring.

Veritasium isn't interaction faster than light something already confirmed by quantum mechanics?

Veritasium as in quantum entanglement

But if the fields which vibrate actually exist, then I don't see much of a problem with non locality. Since the wave contains the information it only looks like the information travels faster then light doesn't it?

I dont think faster than light interactions are too hard to grasp, after-all thats how quantum tunneling works? Maybe people are thinking about this wrong, what if your ability to be entangled with particles (collapsing the wave function) was relative to you , and when systems who are no way entangled overlap a decisive location is 'decided' relative to all entangle particles. Though this would suggest if you could do the opposite and take systems apart to where they aren't entangled to each other, whatever quantum uncertainty that could be made would be random every time these systems meet back to entangle again. Interesting enough I've never seen these experiments use two observers, or wave collapses on both ends of the experiment, though I dont know how realistic this is to test anyway.

It’s no worse than the tennis ball analogy, which wave isn’t even being mentioned.

True if anything, if you really don't know which one is correct (i.e. if the choice of interpretation does not matter), then I always go with the one that's easiest to use, and that's Schrodinger's equation and the Copenhagen interpretation.

Tom Dodd in that case you go for the one which require the least amount of unknowns

viermidebutura There are just as many unknowns in the pilot wave equations as there are in the Schrodinger equation. The difference is that Schrodinger's equation is much easier to solve.

Tom Dodd also the pilot wave explication requires faster than light information transfer which is a big no no

viermidebutura Yes, which, as you say, is a huge problem. There is currently no relativistic pilot wave theory.

Exactly

This doesn't explain delayed choice quantum eraser. Stuff is crazy.

It doesn't explain the double slit experiment because when we observe or measure the electrons going through the slits they end up acting like soild "things" and leave two lines on the back wall, it's only when we do not observe them as they travel and only measure the end result when they form a interference pattern. So if we watch it moving it acts differently to if we wait and only measure the results. That's what makes it so crazy. In this video we can watch the drop as it moves and it still has the same results if we don't watch it. I hope you understand

@@danielcalabrese5769 yes but I always understood that to mean the methods used to sense the photons/electrons at the slits added energy/modified the energy of the particle and so *of course* the result is different. Not saying the pattern makes any sense to me tho

@@decibel333 yes I understand what your saying and its a valid question, in the experiments that I read about or watched on video they explained that they made sure that their measuring equipment had no effect on the experiment. It is a very interesting and thought provoking experiment. 👍

It suits me, because I'm currently studying Young's double slit experiment in Wave Optics 😁😁😁

singingblueberry I think Making homework is less useful then watching this. Doing your homework may be a good idea though.

When you love quantum physics so much, you don't complete homework, you start making it.

Maybe he/she is a teacher. Making, not doing, homework would be sensible

same....

It is a cool interpretation, the problem is that physicists have had trouble reconciling pilot wave theory with relativity among other things, the theory just doesn't hold up compared to coppenhagen or many worlds, doesn't mean it can't though.

@@charliekirkland6040 … that’s not really correct. Copenhagen, in reality, is not even consistent with itself. It should be totally disregarded at this point. Many Worlds is a little silly, imo: so two pictures remain that seem perfectly consistent with experiment: the Bohemian non-local picture, or the Transactional Interpretation (which some modifications, as desired).

Pszexs It might not be true, which you would find out if you watched the whole video before commenting.

I watched the whole wide before commenting. And I know it is just visualisation and simple explanation but still it helps a lot when you want to understand quantum mechanics when you are 18 and you didn't have physics lessons for 2 years. I'm fascinated about the maths and physics but at school I participate extended biology and chemistry classes only.

This is only a visualization of the pilot wave theory. The widely accepted Copenhagen interpretation does not operate like the droplets in this video, so you'll need to look elsewhere if you want to understand that model. It's a lot more probabilistic and unintuitive.

which means you didn't understand it

Well remember this is only a theory. Generally (and what's talked about on spacetime) people talk about the Copenhagen interpretation. This theory is only a possible, but not popular, idea of explaining quantum results.

Hello fellow TIM

HI joke =)

flaggy flag for life

Veritasium I am from the club and claws party.

same, i can't accept the taught of randomness

Pattern recognition might be the simplest description of intelligence itself. Ironically, all knowledge seems to consist of a resonance of ideas & observations between investigators, also a pattern.

Nice pic.

Thanks, you too, Johnny. Are you a voluntaryist/ancap, too?

Scott R Yep yep, the Black and Gold movement grows a little every day. I see more and more of these profile pics around the web.

Andrew Vida #TeslaWasRight

Try to harmonize the possibility of quantum mechanics asserting the existence of a wave medium/aether with the accepted interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The implications would have conspiracy theorists frothing at the mouth

+andrew vida Higgs Field, anyone?

I know right? Maybe Tesla was right after all

Brings up the Michelson-Morley experiment too. Aether is one of those things we invented just to fill gaps, just like the cosmological constant, and not improbably dark matter

This

I think this needs to be a quote, like the ones you find when you google “quotes on stuff”. Because this needs to be embedded into the minds of everyone.

The key question is, can any experiment be devised that will distinguish between the theories? If not, it really does come down to what you're comfortable with - or which mathematical tools best serve your particular purpose.

I'm "uncomfortable" with imparting magic into my science. pretty much every word used to describe Copenhagen interpretation can be interchanged with "magic" without loosing any understanding. example ... how does a wave collapse and a particle appear .... hummm its magic! When you say "wave" what do you mean? when we say wave we mean hummm "magic" of probability. And lets not even start on "superposition". So yeah, if a theory pretty much asks you to dispense with reality and accept magic I'd feel a bit uncomfortable. God doesn't play dice!

@@Leoninmiami did you literally just say you're uncomfortable with imparting magic into science, and then make a claim about a god? Seriously?!

This is NOT a visualization of the wave particle duality. On the contrary, its a visualization of a particle with a pilot wave. The duality is from the Copenhagen interpretation, remember? As explained in the video, the pilot wave is an alternate model to the Copenhagen duality model. The wave particle duality is best visualized as a single particle existing simultaneously in multiple places, i.e., a cloud made up of a single particle, where a single position suddenly becomes the sole position, but the cloud wasnt a vibration, it was an actual multiplicity of a single particle.

Lol

xD

The particle statistical wave model is the core idea of quantum mechanics and ion thrusters.

@MrGoodkat .

I'm sorry but this is how the universe is

The equations for the electron are identical. However, the wave it would presumably be riding, currently unknown, could be detected in the future, kind of like the positron was presumed to exist before it was detected in the real world, or like how the Higgs' boson was presumed to exist before we had some amount of certainty.

+AyyElMao What about the quantum eraser experiments?

Actually there are not *theories* but rather two *interpretations* of quantum mechanics. The math is the same for both (eg the wave-function |Ψ> in the Copenhagen interpretation *is* the same as the pilot-wave in the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation.)

Ah, so these ideas aren't predictive, they are just efforts to make natural language explanations of the same predictive equations?

darn

What's that "ad" you're talking about ? Haven't they been extinct for 8 years ??

Nice minecraft avatar. scrunt

I noticed that as well. I clicked to skip, then when the video started, I was like "oh snap, it's the same guy".

MenexGaming What do you get if you add an ad to an ad? Adception :P

When you get a Veritasium ad for a Veritasium ad before a Veritasium video.

It is when we understand "the wave" and its relation to the droplet. It is not the droplet rather the wave and the power of the wave. When the droplet can turn back into the wave thereby effecting the power of the wave only then can we say random theory applies. It is not random if the wave is the constant. Things that make you go Hmm..

Matthew Smith I was thinking the same thing, because I can see I'm more inclined to believe. That was the feeling after seeing the droplet walking. But is it the same thing for electrons? I hope I don't die with this doubt.

That's to be expected. Our brains didn't evolve to have this stuff be intuitive. We're evolved on the 1 meter scale under the influence of Newtonian physics.

That's the same argument used by all religions... "it's just beyond you..." Anyone who tells you this is selling faith, not science and is usually scamming you.

He said it's not intuitive, not that we aren't incapable of understanding it.

TheMemeWarrior Actually, no. Quite literally the opposite actually. We evolved cognitive biases towards false positives. We're hard wired to assume there's a man behind the curtain.

i feel the same way!

never trust the Danish

Just so that you are aware, there's about as many interpretations of quantum mechanics as there are people seriously thinking about interpretting quantum mechanics. For example, there's at least 5 times as many people who buy into Everettian QM and...erm... if you look into that one ... you might not like it as much. But at least Everett tells us that time exists and space is something that we travel through! And then you hear about Carlo Rovelli...

All of that is just a reminder not to let confirmation bias/relief that the world might actually make sense do the thinking for you :)

His feelings of "ignorance" where shared by Einstein and John Bell. He is in good company.

As Fred Flintstone used to say, "Droll. Very droll."

hahahah best comment award!

***** Google can help you.

The issue you face here is that it does not explain how wave function collapse occurs once a measurement has been made. Nor does it explain away Bell's Inequality.

@@guntguardian3771 the particle is causing the wave. Measuring the particle (ie. touching it) interrupts the vibration which causes collapse (just thinking out loud, no expert)

@@stupidaf4529 It doesn't explain Bell Inequality, which is only explained so far by super position rather than a pilot wave.

@@guntguardian3771 As Derek pointed out in another comment elsewhere, Bell himself was a fan of pilot wave theory. His theory only discredits Local hidden variables; it does not discredit pilot wave theory. Pilot wave theory makes exactly the same predictions as standard quantum mechanics as long as quantum equilibrium is always maintained. Both theories are fundamentally based on the Schrodinger equation.

Muuip. The problem I see with the idea that measuring the position of the particle disrupts the wave particle interaction and giving two groups instead of the interference pattern , is that if you perform the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, you still measure every particle, but when you erase the knowledge of which path the particles took the interference pattern returns.

Agreed

noja83 I didnt understood what u said. Can u please explain the theory that I need to get acquainted with to understand what u meant.

Yash Pal Goyal The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. I believe Space Time has done a video on it. Quantum entangled particle pairs are sent through the double slit and a device is used to redirect and measure the paths they take, but in this it's possible to remove some of the results. When these results are removed it "erases" our knowledge of which path the remaining particles took, which amazingly, causes the wave pattern to return.

This sort of eliminates the possibility that measurement of the particle stops the interaction between the particle and the wave shown in this video resulting in two groups behind the double slit instead of the interference pattern.

that's the thinking - maybe zero point fields are making the particles bounce around

is acoustic levitation related to this water drop experiment. And could it be related to the double slit experiment? (levitation of electrons on an unknown wave-----pilot wave theory

Maybe it's something similar to Brownian motion?

and if it's also influenced by the waves of other particles, it would be even more unpredictable

The pilot waves remind me of the way the surface of water will produce a ripple when subjected to particular sound waves.

except the most important point of this demonstration is that the droplet interacts with the waves it creates, whereas an electron cannot be affected by its own electromagnetic field

+Lac0na perhaps actually looking at what you are reading, before you go to say someone is wrong, would be beneficial to you in the future, because I clearly never said it acts like an electron, I said that it atleast somewhat acts like an electromagnetic wave

+Rough Boulder I think you mean the oil droplet acts like a photon. The air is the electric field, and the oil is the magnetic field. Together, they are equivalent to the electromagnetic field. The oscillation in both is equivalent to an electromagnetic wave.

that's what a photon is though, an electromagnetic wave, atleast when it is a wave.

It's an interesting coincidence.

I think a lot of people will be told about god at young age and the reason why we exist chances are to small that we will ever know. Well i just see it that we have the freedom to choose what our goals will be in life. I totally agree people need to be more curious then just reading a book see it as 100% pure truth.

Dash of awesome You are probably right, its hard to change the way we think if we were brought up like that and especially since science can't explain every single thing in the world

Never go full fedora.

Dux But going full fedora is fun D:

It is impossible to absolute certainty in any Religion if you are only using logic, that is because logically nothing can be definitively proven or dis-proven except other pieces of logic resting on assumptions (such as math). However that also means that you can't disprove Religion either. Some people can claim an otherworldly understanding that they claim surpasses logically understanding or is an evolution of logically understanding and they may well be right, but unless you personally experience such an understanding, it can't be proven. People take Religion seriously because it is what they believe the World really is like, or at least other Worlds. Usually they don't neglect this World, some even use this World as evidence of the wonders of the other Worlds they believe in, or at least Otherworldly beings. Sometimes they are so dogmatic that they reject the Science we use to try to understand this World, other times their own religion causes them to look at the Science. Religion and Science are not enemies, conflict hypothesis/theory suggest that they are, but other than some Fundamentalists, the main conflicts between Science and Religion have been over some authority figure trying to keep power, and they feel that scientific evidence that has proposed alternatives to what the authority figure once believed or told others to believe or still believes (due to an investment in that belief) challenges their authority. The seperate domains hypothesis/theory suggest that Science, the study of the Natural World, deals in the Natural World, where Religion deals with the Supernatural World that cannot be confirmed or denied; they don't involve each other except maybe in some cases of emotion and morality and psychology, more abstract (regardless if they may or may not have proper physical explainations) things. Then there is compataibility hypothesis/theory, which says that Religion and Science are friends, in the past the Christian leadership and Muslim leaderships funded and endorced scientific research, it was deemed a way of understanding how God wants us to improve ourselves and our World, ancient societies invented math and studied to cosmos in honor of their religious beliefs (though this is arguable), Hindus and Buddhists believe that things change in our Universe and that science doesn't contradict their beliefs only offer understanding to things that didn't used to be understood, the Bahai believe that Religion and Science cannot exists properly without each other, the Transcendentalists believed in Science and God as necessary to good life, many great Scientists were religious, as well as agnostic, as well as atheist. If you can't tell, I support the idea that Religion and Science are friends (I am personally a non-denominational Christian, though I think I some more logical and compassionate beliefs than what modern Christian Fundamentalism in America would lead you to believe). I usually say that: Science is the study of the natural world. If we believe God created the natural world, Then science is the study of God's creation, and by gaining more understanding of Science, we gain more understanding of God. (In terms of the Christian Bible, this implies that in Genesis when it says the order God created the World, all they were saying is that God created the World, the order they said was simply the order they thought occurred, if they knew the order we have today, they would have said God created the World in that order instead, also the Hebrew word of Day can also mean era; I believe in Theistic Evolution, though I think my take on it is unique - it may not be, who knows.) Sorry I went off track in answering your question, I just really wanted to hammer so some of my ideas between Religion and Science.

Could this also explain the C limit? \O.o/

How did you get to this conclusion? Without the data, it's merely a guess. I suppose we'd have to wait for someone to test this.

Tiago Lopes => that has happened already! Check out facebook.com/QuantumSpaceTheory and follow the links there 😎

Tiago Lopes . i didnt understand

jamata limbu - there is a complete ToE (Theory of Everything) exactly based on DeBroghlie's and David Bohm's work. They were very much on the right track, while Einstein's GR was more of a (admittedly quite successful, but still) detour. Thad Roberts picked up where they left off, added a genius and intuitive new way how to think in 11 dimensions - and is working on completing the fractal & deterministic topology of our universe - or actually rather cosmos. One interesting consequence of a quantized vacuum: all constants of nature HAVE TO be exactly as they are. No fine tuner required 🤓

What? I don’t think that makes sense. Anti-matter is best thought of as time-reversed particles.

Update: No I don't, I just liked the pilot wave way of looking at things because it's less weird than the Copenhagen thing. But apparently pilot wave doesn't explain other stuff in quantum mechanics, like quantum erasers

Quantum erasers would probably work if you were comfortable with these pilot waves getting around the place at faster than light speed, which you have to assume they do even for the double slit experiment-- the wave has to be there before the photon turns up to tell it where to go. Basically you just say that the "wavefunction" familiar from regular QM is some actual (very weird FTL) oil, or something like it, and the particles get to be real droplets too. I think the latter is the bigger problem-- I don't see how you explain Bell Inequalities unless maybe you allow the droplets to merge in and out of the oil occasionally.

maybey a faster than light piolit wave wich would seem at least possible on the surface see electron teloportation is infact what is responsible for things like electron teliportation and quantum paird particals reacting to each other instantly

Actually there is no violation of relativity if no actual information is transmited from the pilot wave. There are some wave phase velocities that are faster than light and the space itself is expanding faster than light. Seems that its theory is ok

There's an oft repeated quote, and I don't know who first said it: that if you ever think you understand Quantum Mechanics... you don't understand Quantum Mechanics. I've always been very amused by that idea.

I agree. Probability theory is great for making certain predictions, but it doesn't not necessarily mean that the universe is fundamentally probabilistic, lacking in any true ontology. It's our understanding that is lacking.

aarongrooves Exactly. Statistics can be used to explain many phenomenon, just like a coin toss, but we can also explain the result in terms of the mechanics of the flip. The Copenhagen interpretation is just statistical, we are missing the "mechanics" of quantum physics.

Red Pill Philosophy The entirety of every single interpretation of QM is based on assumptions. That's why no theory is set in stone as they all assume different things with give the same results. Please don't come in here with some pseudoscientific babble, unless you have something concrete to say.

Isn't the entirety of ALL physics based on assumptions? Really when you get down to it, everything is based on assumptions. Anyways, I'm still a little skeptical of the Pilot-Wave interpretation because it doesn't (or at least this video doesn't) explain things like superposition of particle spin. Definitely agree with you in saying there are multiple interpretations though. I lean towards the Copenhagen one because it seems to be in line with experimentation more than some of the other interpretations, but that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be true. I also lean towards it because of other mathematical parallels like the uncertainty of fourier transforms. Lol, on a side note: I gotta say, I chuckled a little when you said "quantum physics" I had a teacher who said "real" physicist say "quantum mechanics" not "quantum physics". I called it "quantum physics" all year just to annoy him. Sometimes even "theoretical quantum physics" when I felt like pretending I was Gordon Freeman.

As a particle physicist, I can tell you that this theory is already incompatible with known facts about photons. It's at best a formal analogy to Bohmian mechanics, which itself is known not to work relativistically and, in particular, cannot work for particles that don't have a wavefunction (such as photons).

***** Every heard of the Occam razor?

The interpretation of QM is a super, rich deep subject, that even as a college physics major we didn't explore much. My curiosity is coming back around in middle age and an hour ago I just finished David Deutsch's Fabric of Reality after first reading his newer book Beginning of Infinity (both great). Search him on youtube for, from what I've been exposed to, the clearest and most coherent discussion of QM, computation, and the philosophy of science. I think the Copenhagen Interpretation is actually a non-interpretation, a non/bad explanation and dead end. It's the "shut up and compute", and just kicks the can down the road to beg the question of why observation collapses a wavefunction and what observation really means I just read the wiki page on Interpretation of QM. I think/hope over time Deutsch's work becomes better known, it seems to be a path forward, and his broader synthesis a firm foundation for a coherent scientific worldview.

+Valken I wouldn't necessarily say it's more reasonable, but rather, more intuitive. Also, Occam's razor can be useful, I wouldn't claim it is an infallible heuristic for distinguishing what is and isn't true. I still remain agnostic regarding the different interpretations of QM.

kmm I mentioned Occam's Razor just to point out that complexity does not equal truthfulness, but as you mention, the simplest model isn't always appropriate as well. What I believe is that if we're trying to unify the macroscopic world with the quantum, then the best approach is probably one that seems to work in both. And not a totally alien interpretation like Copenhagen one.

Valken I see. That is the more intuitive way of thinking about it. As physics has shown though, that is often not the best approach. All that really matters is if the description of behavior on the quantum level starts to look more and more like the behavior on the macro scale as the systems get larger (Which, in general they do). Not that the quantum and macro scales can be described in the same sort of way. While it would definitely be easier to just apply Newtonian physics all the way down to the quantum level, that doesn't mean that's how nature works. Of course, it simply doesn't work to do that.

crandf is

crandf tfiq

+Adnan Memon Excuse me?

:P ok, is, in my defense, I typed it on a tiny text box from my handphone