Exactly 😂

Quark was a short lived sci fi TV show that parodied Trek and Star Wars in the late 1970s starring Richard Benjamin. Also a Ferengi bartender on Deep Space 9. What did you hope to learn?

Great suggestion!

Glad you enjoyed it!

Always!

Well I mean, this is very borderline philosohpy so it makes sense that certain thinkers of the past can correlate to this

Glad you enjoyed it!

Your friends are also in a state of superposition as they may or may not understand, because they may or may not be quantum literate, or even if they do, they may or may not care, therefore they may or may not laugh.

Well, you raise an interesting possibility but it was more the opposite. This group was mostly PhDs. They were so hyper focused on actually understanding the theoretical idea behind "Shrodinger's Cat", they missed the joke entirely. It's like I invented a cloaking device. BTW, what is a coat rack... but a cloaking device? LOL Why they let me hang around I don't know. @@HighMojo

It's safer for them not to laugh whether they understood the joke or not. A moan and a small smile would have been nice to at least acknowledge that you had attempted a joke.

Glad you think so!

Wow... you are the first person I have seen online who actually noticed that Feynman made a (poor) joke about superposition there! Congrats. You have a sense of humor. :-)

Indeed. We know it works. It's easily proven at home in a dark room.. But we don't know how

Glad you liked it!

We use Adobe Animate for making these videos.

Glad you think so!

You are wrong about even that. So was Schroedinger. :-)

It's an irreversible energy absorber. This follows trivially from classical physics, we just don't teach very often why and how it does that.

It can happen when they are recorded in different environments with different acoustics.

So as I understood it, (and I literally just watched it myself so I have no idea if I’m right) if a particle can exist in 2 different distinct stages, it would lend credence to the theory that both states of this particle are their own seperate interpetation of reality. We know where the particle should be in a place but at the same time it can be a different place and should be a different place from another alternate reality. Only thing I’m certain of is that it is merely a theory at this stage. Maybe this can simplify it: Imagine a quantum car. Since quantum physiqs the car exists both in the parking lot basement and the top floor at the same time, yet you can only see and predict the car to be in the parking lot, therefore an alternate reality of you would see the car on the rooftop. (Anyone smarter than me please correct me if I missed the mark completely!!! 😅)

Particles don't have different locations. More precisely, particles do not even exist for all we know. Nobody has ever seen one. What we are observing are exchanges of quanta of energy between physical systems, but because "shut up and calculate" works for most users science is not self correcting with regards to teaching the wrong ontology. Most physicists never notice that they have been taught wrong and so they continue teaching wrongly.

Yes, and instead he demonstrated that he didn't understand it.

No, you got it completely wrong. One couldn't possibly be further from the facts than you are. For starters, there are no particles in quantum mechanics. Quanta are small amounts of energy. We try to teach this in high school, but basically nobody listens.

@@lepidoptera9337 You don’t have to be condescending about it. I’m here trying to learn. You talk about how terrible the school system is which I agree with but then you belittle someone who knows less which is just as bad and also a reason why people don’t learn. Because they don’t wanna ask.

@@hitrapperandartistdababy I am not condescending. It is merely a fact that I am painfully aware of because I didn't listen carefully enough in high school, either. Since I am a physics PhD I had an entire professional life to reflect about the disconnect between what we teach and what we remember. It turns out that a lot of the things we teach at the high school level are far more profound than we think. All of quantum mechanics makes a lot more sense if you can remember these 19 words: 1) Energy is the ability of a system to perform work on another system. (13 words for the definition of energy.) and 2) Quanta are small amounts of energy. (The most basic definition of "quantum".). The "strangeness" of quantum mechanics is a direct consequence of the human attempt to identify energy (a system property) with material objects (particles). Even the high school level treatment of the subject allows you to avoid that mistake completely. Properties are different from objects, even in classical systems. In the phrase "red car" we have one property (the color red) and one description of an object (car). Cars and colors don't behave the same. Cars can accelerate, they can change lanes and turn corners, they can even collide. Colors can't do any of that. Colors can mix, though, which cars can't. So, yeah... language matters a lot for the correct reasoning about reality. That's something that gets lost easily during the teaching of facts. The following may also sound condescending to you, but it's the key to being a scientist: YOU have to be your own worst critic because nature is never wrong. It is YOU who is almost always wrong. That's a fact that will become ever more obvious the longer you study a scientific subject. So, yeah, if that is emotionally hard on you, then science is not going to give you much joy, I am afraid. It's a life long learning process... and most of what you have to learn is actually the unlearning of your own worst ideas about "how things should be". Only then can you learn to see how things actually are.

@@lepidoptera9337 “One couldn’t possible be further from the facts than you are” Implying my understanding was ‘dumber than average’ on a subject that is notorious for how difficult it can be to understand. that is indeed a completely unescessary addition to your wording solely written for the intention of showing some kind of superiority and or belittling. A simple “No, that is incorrect” followed by either an explanation or nothing at all would have sufficed plenty. I’m also sure you are quite aware of that fact. Based on your other responses one would imagine you are annoyed by the lack of knowledge on something you master. It’s also entirely possible that you aren’t aware of the fact in which case I’m here to tell you your wording comes off as incredibly arrogant and condescending. Has nothing to do with my “emotional level” (which is also pretty telling of how you view yourself as above others making a comment like that) its simply about basic common courtesy and respect. I came to this video seeking some knowledge on Quantum Physics because I find the subject very interesting, my knowledge is completely beginner and I welcome any information and correction. In fact I wrote my comment to ask for responses Just not when I find it to be belittling or patronizing in tone. If I where to teach you soccer and you made a poor kick should I also say “That kick was completely wrong, it could not have been further from proper form” Well it’s certainly the way certain teachers become “That teacher” No one liked.

@@lepidoptera9337 Science isn’t about smacking people down for being wrong. Has nothing to do with the subject and everything to do with you.

They key is the following phrase: "A quantum is a small amount of energy.". Quantum mechanics does NOT describe how objects behave. It describes how energy is transferred between physical systems. Energy is not an object, hence it does not have to behave like an object. Mystery solved. The remainder is some fairly straight forward math.

Quantum physics proves that light is electromagnetic oscillations in the magnetic field. The magnetic field is not affected by the wall in your example What scientists are observing is one side of the oscillation on each side. Half a wavelength at light speed to "change sides" is undetectable by today's methods. Photon is a measurement (quantity) of energy. Not a particle. The measurement is not useful and has led to this fallacy that light is a particle. Quantum physics proves light is an oscillation in the magnetic field Quantum physics disproves Einstein on many counts. But to be fair other the great people have been disproved on many counts - Sigmund Freud ect!

Yes, we do understand both the math and the physics of this fully. It was Schroedinger who didn't. He wrote an article that was full of confusion and he ruined the subject with his explanation for generations of people who are being deceived by his false reasoning.

Does not make any sense. Could you explain in simple english rather than make it so complicated for a layman to understand? The simpler you xan make the bigger expertise you have in the subject rather than going all technical mumbo jumbo.

No jargon please! No long and hard scary-sounding words either! And no complex sentences! Just plain simple English!

Agreed. I know the presenter is trying to make quantum physics intelligible to the layman but this video sounded (and looked) like something Kamilla Harris would have offered up. (Just the cackling was missing).

I loved that

The animations and texts fit this video what are you talking about? It was relevant

Why don't you just read a book then, you know? Lol

No! Don't stop the irrelevant animations, they are the only reason I and a bunch of other subscribers too are here :)

Quantum mechanics is not only perfectly consistent with relativity, much of its structure (if not all of it) is caused by relativity.

@@lepidoptera9337 Both are Hollywood style theories and both are still unproven.

What amazes you about an ensemble theory of energy? It's basically just Kolmogorov's axioms applied to microscopic energy flow.

The cat doesn't matter. The point of Schroedinger's cat is to show that there is a non-trivial difference between reversible and irreversible systems. Quantum mechanics expresses that gap perfectly fine, Schroedinger was simply not happy that the gap exists in the first place and it ain't small. It's actually what creates reality.

Neither do these guys. They can't teach you what they don't understand themselves.

Thanks a lot for the feedback. This surely helps and we will keep this in mind for our next videos.

It was completely false, as well. ;-)