Is This What Quantum Mechanics Looks Like?

  • Опубликовано:  9 месяцев назад
  • Silicone oil droplets provide a physical realization of pilot wave theories.
    Check out Smarter Every Day:
    Support Veritasium on Patreon:

    Huge thanks to:
    Dr. Stephane Perrard, Dr Matthieu Labousse, Pr Emmanuel Fort, Pr Yves Couder and their group site
    Prof. John Bush:
    Dr. Daniel Harris
    Prof. Stephen Bartlett
    Looking Glass Universe:
    Workgroup Bohemian Mechanics:
    Filmed by Raquel Nuno

    Thanks to Patreon supporters:
    Nathan Hansen, Bryan Baker, Donal Botkin, Tony Fadell, Saeed Alghamdi

    Thanks to Google Making and Science for helping me pursue my #sciencegoals. If you want to try this experiment, instructions are here:

    The standard theory of quantum mechanics leaves a bit to be desired. As Richard Feynman put it, "I think I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics." This is because observations of experiments have led us to a theory that contradicts common sense. The wave function contains all the information that is knowable about a particle, yet it can only be used to calculate probabilities of where a particle will likely turn up. It can't give us an actual account of where the particle went or where it will be at some later time.

    Some have suggested that this theory is incomplete. Maybe something is going on beneath the radar of standard quantum theory and somehow producing the appearance of randomness and uncertainty without actually being random or uncertain. Theories of this sort are called hidden variable theories because they propose entities that aren't observable. One such theory is pilot wave theory, first proposed by de Broglie, but later developed by Bohm. The idea here is that a particle oscillates, creating a wave. It then interacts with the wave and this complex interaction determines its motion.

    Experiments using silicone oil droplets on a vibrating bath provide a remarkable physical realization of pilot wave theories. They give us a physical picture of what the quantum world might look like if this is what's going on - and this theory is still deterministic. The particle is never in two places at once and there is no randomness.

    Edited by Robert Dahlem

    Sound design by A Shell in the Pit
  • ОбразованиеОбразование
  • Длительность: 7:41
  • veritasium  silicone oil droplets  silicone oil  droplets  quantum mechanics  pilot wave  de broglie  quantum  theory  double slit  tunneling  wave  particle  duality  experiment  speaker  oil  droplet  bohmian mechanics  hidden variable theory  

Комментарии: 6 658

  • Andris Mūrmanis
    Andris Mūrmanis 17 часов назад

    Pilot wave.

  • Isfahan An-Nur Haslan
    Isfahan An-Nur Haslan 17 часов назад

    De Broglie - Bohm Pilot Wave Theory.

  • Scott Spyker
    Scott Spyker День назад


  • TheConceptarchitect
    TheConceptarchitect День назад

    I love hydrodynamic quantum analogs. Physics Girl has a video where she creates vortices in a pool with a plate. The moment I saw it I felt that it was an HQA for entanglement.

  • AllTheFishAreDead
    AllTheFishAreDead День назад

    How well does PWT deal with the delayed choice quantum eraser?

  • thewiseturtle
    thewiseturtle День назад

    Randomness IS deterministic, though... Real randomness is unpredictible unless you know all the details of where you are and how you got there. Which we never know, as limited beings within the system.

  • CR2504life
    CR2504life 2 дня назад

    *NEITHER !!!! its the Russian !!!*

  • Kahl Read
    Kahl Read 2 дня назад

    The idea of pilot waves takes me to our common dream-state we all experience. What we can't work-out with logic during the day is often answered on waking in the morning having gone to bed thinking of the problem. In a sense... the particle 'me' disappears as I enter sleep and the wave 'me' emerges to find the answer. In a fractal sense... I believe the two operating systems or patterns are consistent.

  • Jim Probe
    Jim Probe 2 дня назад

    I like Pilot Wave model.

  • Nikolay Rayanov
    Nikolay Rayanov 2 дня назад

    Pilot wave it is...Ockham's razor. The easiest explanation is usually the correct one.

  • Alex H
    Alex H 3 дня назад

    The pilot wave looks really interesting. It might explain a lot of things.

  • Onim Dip
    Onim Dip 3 дня назад

    my GOD this is just amazing :'0 Thank you man..

  • Annex Canada
    Annex Canada 3 дня назад

    wrong! because you cannot fire just one electron like the double slit experiment that gives the interference pattern, in your theory you need many

    • Annex Canada
      Annex Canada 3 дня назад

      but then again you work with *bill nye ''the non-scientist shill liar guy* who is trying to force climate warming by humans on us and a solution that steals our freedoms, rights, culture, laws, money and overall way of life in the west, aka white lands

  • AuthenticDarren
    AuthenticDarren 4 дня назад

    One of the best....and possibly one of the most important.........videos on YouTube.

    The results of Pilot Wave Theory are just too good, it seems to me that a good part of this theory must surely be ALONG THE RIGHT LINES of what is really going on at quantum level.

    I feel there are big clues to the quantum truth here. It'a all just too coincidental otherwise.

  • Abhishek N Nair
    Abhishek N Nair 4 дня назад

    The Many Worlds Theory

  • Fusion Tricycle
    Fusion Tricycle 4 дня назад

    What about the quantum eraser added to the double slit experiment?

  • Communist_Penguin
    Communist_Penguin 5 дней назад

    this theory seems about a million times more feasable than wavefunctions, there must be a reason its not as popular?

  • Leoninmiami
    Leoninmiami 5 дней назад

    If you loved this video ... you gotta read this.

  • dave daved
    dave daved 6 дней назад

    cool vid. lates

  • Dejawolfs
    Dejawolfs 6 дней назад

    i've been pondering about this pilot wave theory, and the weirdness of entanglement...
    well.... what if electrons that are entangled... are entangled in time? they are right next to eachother in the time dimension, but very far from eachother in all other dimensions?

  • Ram babu
    Ram babu 6 дней назад

    Why we are getting water ripples even though whatever may be the object thrown into pond

  • Semi Warrior
    Semi Warrior 7 дней назад

    But in your analogy to a double slit experiment, there is no wave-particle duality, which had place in the experiment(with and without detectors). I didn't understand: how does pilot wave theory evades the wave-particle duality?(Sorry for my bad english)

  • diego
    diego 8 дней назад

    How does the pilot wave explain the differences in the double slit experiment, when an observer or measurement is taken the interference pattern is no longer there? Also how does it explain the quantum eraser experiment and the delayed choice?

  • Chad Landgraf
    Chad Landgraf 8 дней назад

    I've watched both the water based and this oil based version and they leave me wondering what would change, if anything, if the medium was a mix of both oil and water?

  • IzzyInfinite
    IzzyInfinite 9 дней назад

    How does this tie into entanglement?

  • Aristotle Stout
    Aristotle Stout 11 дней назад

    For some reason I imagine dark matter as the particle in this analogy and dark energy as the pilot wave. The reason that say, our very bodies aren't torn apart by the pilot wave directing the particles in our bodies away from each other is because the attraction of the particles is too strong. I'm sorry I'm an unedcutated idiot I shouldn't be here. Please educate me.

  • Todd Edwards
    Todd Edwards 11 дней назад

    Is there a relationship between the speaker frequencies below the dish and the surface frequencies of droplet performance? In the video the droplets are clearly smaller or larger but seem to be specific sizes; is the droplet size related to each other in a "quanta" volume, and?or because of the dish frequencies and?or are they independent and?or exist??

    NEWKNOWLEDGE 12 дней назад

    Imagine a one dimensional being trying to comprehend a two dimensional reality.
    Now imagine a two dimensional man trying to comprehend a three dimensional reality.
    Now imagine a three dimensional man trying to comprehend a four dimensional reality.

    The tiny three dimensional man will perceive his existence in time, as being nothing but the present real-time.
    Although, he will be aware that he is moving through time, throughout his life.

    Meanwhile, the four dimensional reality exists. It is composed of four dimensions. Three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time. However, to our tiny three dimensional man, to him he lives always in the present time, and so he doesn't perceive the four dimensional structure of space-time for what it truly is.

    There are two sides to reality. One is the inside, also known as the present time or real-time. The other side, is the outside, otherwise known as all time of that 4 dimensional space-time structure, other than the inside, or present/real-time.

    On the outside, events are 4 dimensional. They extend across both space and across time.
    On the inside, events occur at a single point in space at a single point in time.

    If you would then include both laws of physics, meaning those on the outside, and those on the inside, everything seen, concerning things like particle/wave duality, action at a distance, delayed quantum choice, quantum erasure, etc.,
    is seen exactly as you expect it to be seen.

    Exclude the laws of physics present on the outside, as do today's physicists, and the bizarreness and incompleteness of quantum mechanics is born and maintained.

  • Gert Woumans
    Gert Woumans 12 дней назад

    i'm much more comfortable with the pilot-wave theory. However, i'm still unable to confront the duality in my head regarding redshift/blueshift from EM waves. The interference patern could be explained by interference from EM waves, and the same EM waves explains redshift (blueshift) when senders of EM-waves leave (approach).
    However with the splitting of the particle and the wave, i don't understand how that would go (neither do i arrive at any intuitive conclusions with the copenhagen, many- or zero-world explanation, since they all keep the light as a photon).

  • Matt Steel
    Matt Steel 12 дней назад

    I just found out Derek(Veritasium) went to my university in Kingston Canada... iron ring gave it away! So cool to see a Canadian engineer being a science educator! hurray for science and learning =)

  • Steve Thorson
    Steve Thorson 14 дней назад

    This is so helpful. Thank you!

  • Johnathan Jones
    Johnathan Jones 15 дней назад

    I was walking along the beach that had two posts sticking out of the water. On the shore of a beach I saw the same wave patterns that we see in the double slit experiment. This is the opposite yet get the same results of your typical slit experiment has, they are double Post. Really is eventually comes down to the question of is the ocean made out of particles of water or waves of water? Obviously they are both in the interaction of both. This is why quite some theories and mechanics do not make sense they cannot observe the obvious.

  • ThrundaWolf
    ThrundaWolf 18 дней назад

    It's like Rick and Morty with the uncertainty bit

  • Ayman Tallaj
    Ayman Tallaj 19 дней назад

    In the droplet case, the wave is made by physical matter unlike the wave like behavior of a particle which acts as the both a particle and a wave simultaneously.... so can we suggest that there is some kind of an invisible physical fabric on which waves can form with the influence of particles? And maybe disturbing our measurements?

  • Santos Lukombo
    Santos Lukombo 20 дней назад

    Einstein was wright the theory is uncomplete. We'll discover that in fex decades like black hole, constant of expending universe and so on. Einstein was a very very good phisician the better but now I feel we juste want to interprete physics through math but we forget that math it's just a tool. Math is no going to explained us what is hidden in quatum physics. Math is useful to discribe if we have the right interpretation about something but to have the right interpretation we havet o be more open about new ideas and more imagination beyond academic boarders....
    (sorry for my english i'm french)

  • Goran Vukša
    Goran Vukša 20 дней назад

    Great video. How does this theory explain observer effect? You have only mentioned wave pattern.
    Edit: Also, if you have waves on which particle travels, what is producing them? Does this return aether on the back door?

  • Scott Owen
    Scott Owen 20 дней назад

    Intriguing. It may indeed appeal to those who want to hold on to their belief in determinism, but if reality is deterministic, then no theory about anything would have any value, since the theories themselves would be determined. Also, still unexplained is consciousness, of which we each have proof, and what is consciousness without at least some level of freedom of thought, i.e. free will.

    • mike4ty4
      mike4ty4 12 дней назад

      I don't get how any theories would have "no value" if they are themselves "determined". Value is something we construct in our minds, and our minds would work the same way whether their operation was determined in advance or is created on the fly. So we'd still get sensations of "value" and so forth, and furthermore "free will" can be a _feeling_ . (One thing I've often argued is that to me the whole "free will" debates are moot because two things: for one, we cannot know all the factors that would go into a decision outcome and furthermore all the different brain processing patterns to produce a useful prediction a long time in advance, and for another, whether we have free will or not, would we really _feel_ a difference? If no free will, we certainly sure _feel_ like we have some. If the same set of brainpatterns was produced by an actual free will or produced off a tape, in both cases generating the same set of subjective experiences, would we really _feel_ any difference? That is, would we _feel_ like, if we had no free will, we were being "out of control" like a tape player? What if though what's also on that tape though is a feeling of control? So whether it exists or not, we know for _sure_ the _feeling_ exists and _that_ is what we have and use to inform our actions, and I'd suggest we'd have that whether it exists or not and thus it is of no real relevance whether it exists or not to our living.) Also, a theory has value if it's useful. We could still "make use" of those theories even if our making-use, and discovery/invention of the theories was all scribed out long in advance.

      Also if there is no free will I'd think the Bohmian approach is a rather interesting way to have it, because in a _sense_ you could say it _does_ have free will: the Bohmian waves are nonlocal and acausal, that is, interactions, or, well, the classical movement of the particle, depends on things going on arbitrarily far across the universe and perhaps also in past and future due to relativity theory (which would break down the usual ordering of causality because of the faster-than-light transit). With the universe most likely being infinite, according to our best observations, that means it contains an infinite amount of matter and so an infinite number of possible influencing factors. Is there a practical difference between determinism that depends on a literally, actual, completed infinity of information, and nondeterminism? I would wager there is not, because we can literally never, ever manage to grab all the information, from across both space and time. Thus "free will" is restored in a sense, yet at the same time does not exist either, because it _is_ deterministic, and then on the final hand it becomes essentially "an expression of the 'will of the Universe'" because as said all of the Universe comes to affect that motion.

      The bit of beef I have though with the Bohmian theories is their mathematical elegance, or not. Having a separate and simultaneous "classical" and "quantum" existence for each particle (one as the classic particle moving on trajectory, the other as the quantum wave function) provides as a nice way to do away with the whole debate around the classical/quantum boundary - there is none! Everything is simultaneously _both_ classical _and_ quantum, and it's just a matter of which one has more "clout" in a given situation. E.g. in a quantum computer, or so I've heard, all the action takes place in the quantum wave function, while the particle's motion carries very little computational meaning. Yet in a classical computer, of course, it would be that the classical motion would be very much significant, and the quantum component carries little meaning. This is a very neat and nifty way to unify the two types of computation (and intringuingly, and tantalizingly, hints at the possibility of some form of "borderland computation" where both parts are playing a role - although I'm not sure that would work out.).

      But when I say about lack of mathematical elegance what I mean is for the classical state the Bohmian theories privilege the position, and likewise for the wavefunction, it is the position wave function. An often-underappreciated aspect of regular quantum mechanics that goes unmentioned in many of these presentations is that regular quantum mechanics doesn't just talk about a wave function that's a "wave in space" - but in fact you can also take the same wave function and transform it to a physically equivalent, but much more abstract in concept, "wave in momentum space"(!). That is, there is a psi function psi(x, y, z) that forms a wave-pattern in positional, physical (x, y, z) situating space, _and_ there is an _exactly related_ chi-function chi(p_x, p_y, p_z) (to distinguish from psi) that forms a wave-pattern in _momentum space_ (p_x, p_y, p_z) where coordinates represent a possible _momentum_ for the particle! (And has the same interpretation with |chi|^2 being a probability density only now for probability of measuring a momentum!) And neither of these are privileged: both are _different 'basis'_ representations (as in Linear Algebra, if you've done it) of a common state vector in a Hilbert space vector space. Yet Bohm chooses to, imo, rather arbitrarily, privilege one of these over the other, and then devise some other, more sophisticated explanations, for how the others appear as the result of measuring devices designed to detect them. I find this though a bit unappealing - though that doesn't necessarily mean BM would be wrong (nor does it mean it's right) of course, although we have no way to distinguish _any_ interpretations of QM right now. The Hilbert space is a neat thing - as is linear algebra in general. I've tried a bit to toy around to see if perhaps there's a BM-like theory in which the "classic" part of the particle is not just a position triplet but some sort of more sophisticated mathematical thingy that, when you look at it in different ways it gives you a definitive position, _and_ momentum, _and_ ... like the Hilbert space does for the wave functions (and ideally the two would have to be related) but with no luck so far. Perhaps though someone more expert than I am in this right now has already done it. I'd be interested to see the results of that work, if it exists. If anyone has any suggestions, I'd like to hear about them.

  • Aaron Mramba
    Aaron Mramba 20 дней назад

    These things are confusing. It's the second time i read about this

  • Glenn Kirkness
    Glenn Kirkness 21 день назад

    This theory has got to be on the right tracks,it actually makes sense .the Copenhagen interpretation makes no sense, Einstein thought it was rubbish too.

  • Srikanth Heerekar
    Srikanth Heerekar 21 день назад

    Beam me up, Scotty! Scientists teleport photons 300 miles into space

  • wasim emon
    wasim emon 22 дня назад

    can pilot wave theory supports the uncertainty principle.??
    If there is no uncertainty no superposition is needed...

  • Fransisco Wijaya
    Fransisco Wijaya 22 дня назад

    Ive seen this phenom before, it happens when raining

  • major man
    major man 24 дня назад

    why am i watching this at two a'clock in the morning i need to sleep!!!

  • 1871gries The Gries
    1871gries The Gries 25 дней назад

    so interesting........very cool effect.....but the underlying brain collisions between classical and quantum theories involve trying to apply classical tools and thinking to quantum situations. this is just another bridge to span the classical-quantum gap. Even the Bell theorem is just another name for unknown ie ..hidden variable theories? wow!... copenhagen is the best explanation of the wave/particle far. observation does change outcome as you are interfering with the system!.... I learned about Quantum mechanics in the 60's, in wrote the wavefunction and calculated ....i really didnt get it then....and I still dont get it completely...

    thanks for all the great inputs.....still wondering.....

  • TheSafecat
    TheSafecat 25 дней назад

    A wave requires a medium. I want a better understanding of the medium supporting pilot waves for electrons and photons.

  • Mike Walterich
    Mike Walterich 26 дней назад

    I think it's whichever one experiments conclude, until the conclusive experiment I will remain agnostic.

  • aryehsapir
    aryehsapir 26 дней назад

    Fu ? uF

    Copper bowl, a drop of oil, add a coil
    Electrons; push and pull
    Wave a hand for added drama…


    Presonance, resonance, postonance
    (Dance projection - past and future)
    Bubbles bob, expand and wobble, in and out, jell-o prance
    Oil beneath responds in kind, surface rises soft and blind
    To caress soft curves vibrating, in response to vibes that bind
    Circles soft, meet oscillations, waves combine to speak of terms…


    Be the God above the plane, do forget your preconceptions
    Slow your mind and blink your eyes, see!
    “Drop” in flight above the oil, perfect shape, true aim and path
    In majestic pre perception of its destiny direction
    That awaits your divination as your finger nears the…


  • MrTrumanBrain
    MrTrumanBrain 27 дней назад

    Would be good to see the double slit experiment with 'The high speed camera' unless the act of viewing the experiment changes the outcome!!

  • Zealot Feathers
    Zealot Feathers 28 дней назад +1 other words, you can never get away from your basic, unprovable philosophical starting point. No matter what you do, you WILL have a bias.

  • Naveen Parthasarathy
    Naveen Parthasarathy 29 дней назад

    Why is it hard to come up with experiments to identify which theory is going to be a closer representation of reality?

    • mike4ty4
      mike4ty4 12 дней назад

      For one, BM was _designed_ to give the same predictions as standard QM. That makes it somewhat difficult to test. However, some have suggested it might not be.

      One of the interesting things I've been thinking about regarding BM is how BM reacts when it is placed in line with special relativity. Because BM involves actual faster-than-light transmission (and not just faster-than-light correlation, which is different), it violates causality. Some say this is a reason to hate it, but for me I prefer to try the iconoclasm approach, smash causality, and take this seriously. What I'd in particular wonder about is if any of these faster-than-light interactions could ever end up with a "grandfather paradox", and if so, how does the theory, when transplanted to the Minkovski spacetime, react to this kind of situation? Does such a reaction cause it to generate nonsense, or does some sort of "self consistency" principle naturally arise? Furthermore, if one does, _does this in some way affect the predictions for experiments, probabilities, etc._ ? E.g. does it lead to a violation of the Born rule or something? This could make/break BM if it suggested some sort of unusual effect due to reversed causality. It might take some rather extreme experimental methods though, like putting particles on spaceships moving near the speed of light. Then again, maybe it just all "gets averaged out" still and thus ends up with nothing. Nonetheless, the thing is I have not heard it often discussed, or even discussed at all, rather what comes up is more that "if it breaks causality, that means it's bad theory" instead of actually trying to _push that option through to the end_ to see where it leads.

  • Daniel Jeffery
    Daniel Jeffery 29 дней назад

    How long is a long time? How long do they stay on the surface on average?

  • Super Jorje
    Super Jorje 29 дней назад

    I tend to like pilot wave theory more, because they have a definite position in space through time.

  • Mr.Happy Gaming HD
    Mr.Happy Gaming HD 29 дней назад

    Your Pilot Wave Theory arguement conveniently left out the bit where concious observation changes the outcome of the double slit experiment.

    DEADPOOL 29 дней назад

    i think its time to..Occam this razor

  • Vladferrum
    Vladferrum Месяц назад

    This explanation is very logically strong. Electron is interfering not with himself, but with space where it flies. Also, it is not superpositioned in field of probabilities, but vibrates so fast, that our timing sensors cant detect it in expected position every time when it passes by. Besides it explains that when mass increases, wave effect decreases and completely disappears at some point. (very good visualised by those big droplets that are not bouncing). But, what about observer paradox? How could it affect the pilot waves, so the particles starts to move straight?

    • mike4ty4
      mike4ty4 12 дней назад

      Well it doesn't necessarily "vibrate fast", it simply moves along a path that is determined by the evolution of the wave function. The wave function is what does all the interference and other "quantum" stuff, the electron just ends up wherever, but when you have many electrons, all coming from different, effectively random places (due essentially to randomness in the experiment due in turn to the holistic interaction of the entire cosmos), these waves guide them so that, when measured, you get the expected probabilities.

  • Captain Lang Sailing tutorials
    Captain Lang Sailing tutorials Месяц назад +1

    It seem that in all "sciences" an orthodoxy develops and new or different ideas are rejected not by reason but rationalizations. The desire to reject determinism at all cost is not rational. I understand a deterministic world is not as much fun as a random one but think of all the new discoveries we can make if we seek the truth no matter how painful and upsetting that might be.

    • mike4ty4
      mike4ty4 12 дней назад

      The rub is it's not just a deterministic world, it's a deterministic world that is effectively nondeterministic by action of universal holism: all the "deterministic" _micro_ -scale phenomena are determined by literally _everything else going on in the universe_ - at _past present and future_ due to causality violation thanks to Special Relativity which mixes past, present, and future. Since the universe is almost surely infinite in both space and time that makes it mean you'd need to have an infinite amount of information from literally all of space _and all of time_ to figure out exactly what any given particle was doing. So it's determinist but _also_ in a sense, nondeterministic. Queer logic not classical logic :) It both is and isn't at the same time.

    • Ahsim Nreiziev
      Ahsim Nreiziev 12 дней назад

      THIS. Exactly this.

      One of the few times I'd wish I could give more than 1 like, because I'd give you 20 of them or so.

  • Erik Dahlgren
    Erik Dahlgren Месяц назад

    Great video.

  • Thiago Patrick
    Thiago Patrick Месяц назад

    Pilot wave team. ahahaha

  • ochgottnochma
    ochgottnochma Месяц назад

    brb building quantum computer with a speaker and droplets

  • Tony Souter
    Tony Souter Месяц назад

    Bryan, that was a VERY professional presentation. Beautifully written and said.

  • miguel rodriguez
    miguel rodriguez Месяц назад

    this is exactly what milo wolf and Gabriel lafraniere sees as a electron made of waves

  • Anders Rosendal
    Anders Rosendal Месяц назад

    This has been my interpretation of the experiment from the first time I heard it. You get the same results so I never understood why all the magic was needed in the Copenhagen interpretation.

    Isn't the simplest explanation the most likely?

    ICE FALLS Месяц назад

    According to this electron can collapse??

  • Jamal Tjon-A-San
    Jamal Tjon-A-San Месяц назад

    Could the pilot wave theory be tested by changing the oscillation of the particle to see if the particle changes course? Or does interacting with the particle automatically changes it results?

  • Danny B
    Danny B Месяц назад

    Id more likely believe pilot wave theory than the copenhaagen interpretation. i also believe in determinism

  • jones1351
    jones1351 Месяц назад

    I think this is a good 'visualization' tool for DeBroglie's thesis. But, for me, I 'see' only the wave traveling in space with the particle appearing after collapse. I keep to this because of Heisenberg's principle and 'Bell's inequality'. It's not a question of 'hidden variables'. It is true in-determinism. If it doesn't make sense, oh well.

    • Ahsim Nreiziev
      Ahsim Nreiziev 12 дней назад

      Bell's Inequality only says anything at all when taken in conjunction with the Einstein-Podolski-Rosen thought experiment.

      Together, they disprove the idea of that any *Local* Theory of Quantum Mechanics can ever give an accurate explanation of it's phenomena. To be more specific, EPR proves that no Local Theory can work *without* Hidden Variables, while Bell proved that Local Theories can't explain all the experiments *with* Hidden Variables either.
      They say absolutely *nothing* about whether Hidden Variables themselves should be disqualified -- well, except that EPR strengthened the case for Hidden Variables, and then Bell brought the case for them back to the original _"We don't know at this point."_

  • ProfessorBorax
    ProfessorBorax Месяц назад

    It's not a question of which we're more comfortable with, it's a question of which one is true. They are different therories and I'm sure there is a way to test which one is right, on will be with advanced technology.

  • QED
    QED Месяц назад

    Alright people, calm down. Keep in mind this is only appealing because we can see it. Most physicists don't think this is the correct interpretation for a variety of legitimate reasons.

  • Walking Shows
    Walking Shows Месяц назад

    The universe needs to make only one visible atom - Hydrogen - the rest is history. Yo

  • Paul Pedersen
    Paul Pedersen Месяц назад

    IMO, what reality is, might be unknowable. What we attempt is not to unravel the mystery of ultimate reality, but rather to develop models that predict observable behavior. In that light, both of the two interpretations are acceptable to the extent that they are useful (which is also true of Newtonian mechanics).

    The question of what is actually "real" can be left for another day, if indeed that question is even meaningful.

  • Clarke Ensign Waldron
    Clarke Ensign Waldron Месяц назад

    After years of knowing of the results of the double-slit experiment, I finally have a basic understanding of a explanation. While it as true that this is not a completely accurate description, it does make sense. Thanks for the work.

  • epsilonxyzt epsilon
    epsilonxyzt epsilon Месяц назад

    I prefer Quantum Mechanics!

  • wisdom knight
    wisdom knight Месяц назад

    I choose pilot waves

  • Jake Harper
    Jake Harper Месяц назад

    I had a bubble like that in a 2lt bottle of coke when I released a small bit of pressure

  • Advaith Sahasranamam
    Advaith Sahasranamam Месяц назад

    I would say the Copenhagen interpretation since it talks about wavefunctions.

  • Dan Prisaca
    Dan Prisaca Месяц назад

    Great job with this video !

  • Rokaih
    Rokaih Месяц назад

    I was wondering if anyone had any tips for lighting in this experiment? I'm currently trying to track the walkers using Python coding, so lighting needs to be just right.

  • Joe Leonardo
    Joe Leonardo Месяц назад

    The pilot wave theory could explain why the particle moves in a random direction but it doesn't explain why particles don't produce an interference pattern when being observed.

  • Juan Pretorius
    Juan Pretorius Месяц назад

    The speaker at 5:08 looks a lot like 3:04, jus' sayin'

  • Taylor Artymus
    Taylor Artymus Месяц назад

    but what I wanna know is, can we get a massive speaker and make a massive droplet bounce around?

  • SmashAnarchy
    SmashAnarchy Месяц назад

    This is a much more intuitive explanation of Young's experiment. I have long felt that the original ideas of an aether or fabric of the universe that we just have not been able to detect is probably correct. This would go a long way towards explaining many other things, including gravitational waves, mass-less particles et al.

  • T21
    T21 Месяц назад

    if one claim something is random its only because its not understood well enough.
    what we define as chaos is a form of complexity (process over time)

  • Ramon Torres
    Ramon Torres Месяц назад

    So does the idea of the electron behaving differently depending of whether it is being observed or not still hold true, or is that just not true?

  • Kristy Hamlin
    Kristy Hamlin Месяц назад

    Okay but can pilot wave theory explain delayed choice double slit or the "quantum eraser" experiment which demonstrated that even when which slit an electron went through was detected after the position measurement of it's entangled partner, an interference pattern was not observed, whereas when this information was afterward lost by not hitting a detector, an interference pattern was observed? It seems to me that unless pilot wave theory can explain these observer experiments, we are still forced to accept Copenhagen for the time being.

  • FPV 3D
    FPV 3D Месяц назад

    wow - you actually look just like Louis de Broglie dude... hmmmm...

  • Gema gemoide
    Gema gemoide Месяц назад

    Me encantan tus vídeos. Enhorabuena.

  • vikash achary
    vikash achary Месяц назад

    Mind blowing ...

  • Riccardo Palamidesse
    Riccardo Palamidesse Месяц назад

    what would happen if you put detectors (that use or absorb the waves to know where the droplet passed)behind the slits??
    would the droblets behave like particles and end up in just two spots??

  • Daniel Vieira
    Daniel Vieira Месяц назад

    I prefer the pilot wave explanation, the copenhagen interpretation looks too much like "we can't see, therefore it [the pilot wave] doesn't exist" to me. the pilot wave sounds a lot more plausible to me.

    there's one thing I missed in the video. the pilot wave for the bouncing oil droplet is the oscillating water surface. what would be the water surface of the free electron, for example? is there even an educated guess on the matter?

  • michange3141592
    michange3141592 Месяц назад
    E.L.O already had it down right back in 1981 !!!

  • luke666808g
    luke666808g Месяц назад

    If the pilot wave is true, why does the wave disappear when you take a measurement?
    It sort of makes more sense as a property of the particle itself right?

  • davidvdbergen
    davidvdbergen Месяц назад

    This droplet (as the particle) riding the space-time fabric would explain how you can create electricity with magnetism, you bascally pull out the electron as you are doing now using a toothpick.
    And also why particles behave like waves.
    This would also explain heavy (or bigger) "particles" causing a bigger disturbance in the space-time fabric explaining gravity.

  • Rup7ur3 Strygwyr
    Rup7ur3 Strygwyr Месяц назад

    Love this video, because it is a sensible explanation.
    When people don't know something there'll be always one explanation: 'It's some mystical supernatural thing which is random or controlled by a higher intelligence.' It is a stupid explanation which you could use to explain anything always. Obviously something like shown in the video is a far more logical explanation.
    Scientists today are really silly. They say that they basically don't know what form or shape a photon is. Then they do experiments as if they know and explain the answers as if they know. It's like saying the speed of light is the maximum speed. This is claimed because they thought photons have no mass, thus no rest mass, thus when emitted it must travel at the maximum possible speed. Then when something travels faster they claim it must be bending 'spacetime'. Like really? And they still believe this although it's proven photons actually have mass?
    Science at this point is less logical than many religions. Religions are very logical actually, except for the claim there is an almighty being. Science would be as logic only if it claimed that we live in a simulation, then all these stupid claims can be justified. Yet, there is no reason to say it's magic apart from assumptions which are silly.

  • Leo Schouten
    Leo Schouten Месяц назад

    you've invented the warp drive !!

  • loonatic7
    loonatic7 Месяц назад

    What was it that William of Ockham said back in the day?

  • Clayton Hinkle
    Clayton Hinkle Месяц назад

    I never bought Copenhagen and neither did Einstein, although he dismissed pilot wave as well. The electron is there, just because we can't measure it doesn't mean it didn't have a location before we measured it. I'm pilot wave all the way. Like Einstein was at least rumored to have said, was the moon not there until I looked at it?

  • António Henriques
    António Henriques Месяц назад

    So, with very simple words, let me see if I got it:
    -The wave expands in all directions and dictates the movement of the particle
    -The particle moves in one direction at a time, and that movement is dictated by its interaction with the very wave it creates;
    So, we say that in quantum mechanics "a particle can be in 2 places at once" because we measure those places based on the wave? Because the wave is in those 2 places and therefore can guide the particle to either of them?
    And now we reach the conclusion that the particle is never in more than one place at a time, rather that it has the possibility of being in either of those places as long as its wave covers that area;
    I have been digging into this subject for an absurdly SHORT time, so correct, elaborate and enlighten me about the physics in this please :D

  • Marco Barbieri
    Marco Barbieri Месяц назад

    I'm a big fan of the hidden variables theory (out of which the wavefunctions in QM are built up). What I like so much is that there is a mechanism that mimics the probability interpretation. How can an event based on irreducible chance take place? How does a particle "know" when it's going to decay, for example? You can, of course, say that the irreducible chances determine when a particle decays, but what does that mean? How does a particle "feel" when it's going to decay? Chance is a human made concept, involving our lack of knowledge, which is then applied to, say a dice, and in this picture if you roll a perfect dice, the chances are one sixth of each number on the dice in the limit of an infinite amount of rolls of the dice. Now how can you objectivize this human concept and apply it to the interpretation of QM, while hidden variables are much more objective and offer a neat explanation of the so-called inherently, irreducible chance interpretation of the Copenhagen interpretation? For the Brown-particle in a fluid, the movements are not inherently chance based. There is even an uncertainty relation developed for the Brown-particle. But we know that the erratic behavior of the Brown-particle is caused by the actions of enormous amounts of the molecules in the fluid, which can be compared to hidden variables.

  • Owez Khan's Science
    Owez Khan's Science Месяц назад

    Very good video