Is This What Quantum Mechanics Looks Like?

Silicone oil droplets provide a physical realization of pilot wave theories.
Check out Smarter Every Day: http://bit.ly/VeSmarter
Support Veritasium on Patreon: http://bit.ly/VePatreon

Huge thanks to:
Dr. Stephane Perrard, Dr Matthieu Labousse, Pr Emmanuel Fort, Pr Yves Couder and their group site http://dualwalkers.com/
Prof. John Bush: http://math.mit.edu/~bush/
Dr. Daniel Harris
Prof. Stephen Bartlett
Looking Glass Universe: http://bit.ly/LGUVe
Workgroup Bohemian Mechanics: http://www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/~bohmmech/
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: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12650-016-0383-5

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

Просмотров: 1811402
Длительность: 7:41
Комментарии: 6203

Тэги для этого Видео:

Найти больше видео в категории: "27"
Видео загрузил:
Показать больше видео, загруженных


Автор john ( назад)
in the silicon analogy, the dropllet is the particle and the wave are the soundwave in the water. what would be the wave for the electron in the pilot theory?

Автор Jason Sykes ( назад)
Dang, I hate when someone makes sense of something interesting. Now, I am not going to be productive in my own personal work. Thanks.

Автор Jay Benson ( назад)

Автор wiiiiktor ( назад)
so, how the quantum computer works? ;-)

Автор wiiiiktor ( назад)
congrats man, this was great.

Автор Daniel Kamers ( назад)
This is the WOW effect for my brain.... THANKS!!!! Showed me what I knew was there, but could not express. What if the "drop" (matter) is just the point where that wave "ressonate" (maybe with others or itself) because of added energy and the drop "come out" from the wave itself? Do you think it could be "done"? If our universe is this infinite surface and the big bang is all the energy/matter added just like a "drop", it should be possible to "see" all effects we know in this bidimensional simulation, including gravitons (as waves) and "drops" being "attracted" (or repulsed, maybe imagining they form on both sides of the surface - dark matter). Nicely enough this represent the mass/wave reality, the presence of an "unreachable" dimension (vertical) and, hopefully, the Plank Constant and light velocity correlated with this liquid parameters. The multiverses would be all liquids where good enough harmonics could be constructed. Thanks again, best regards.

Автор V is for Void ( назад)
Is it possible to re-create the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment with oil droplets, or at least its results? Even if it's not possible with oil droplets, can it be formulated within or predicted by pilot wave theory?

Автор Andrew Davis ( назад)
So the geometry of the various quantum fields determines how your particles will interact and behave and then of course that's the physical laws of that universe, but I'm still not sure how our universe's quantum fields/geometry got their initial values though. There are the different and almost infinite variations of physical laws, and universes they govern, in hyperspace, but what are the mechanics that create a universe with its parameters? Are they all created by some random fluctuation in empty space? I've heard physicists say that 'nothing' is unstable, and given enough time fluctuates. Wasn't this before there was 'space'? What 'fluctuated'? I know inflation theory says that a small, hot and dense point inflated, but was not smooth. It had an uneven distribution of heat, and possibly an uneven distrubution of whatever gives constants there values, and the way it inflated that initial random heat distribution gave us the specific geometry/quantum fields of this particular universe. What's the specifics of the actual mechanics of the process that makes the, what, 10^500 universes?

I mean, the real reason we even consider a theory like this is because probability says that the geometry, or physical laws, of our universe being set the values they have to allow the formation of life is extremely unlikely, much lower than .00000...1%, so how did something that unlikely happen? Only if you consider that there are plenty of other universes with many different values for its laws, more probable ones that don't need to be so specific. My own guess is that 95% or more of universes that exist cant form life or awareness at all, and that we are the far far outliers in the distribution of universes with varying physical constants.

Автор Gabriel ET ( назад)
By posting with others here, I feel a bit like Charlie Tuna trying to convince Star Kist he has good taste (those who remember that commercial are likely a dwindling population). However, from my purely proletarian physics perspective (alliteration unintended) I prefer the Pilot Wave. Is it possible that the mass of the electron is disturbing the space/time around the slits so that a wave from its movement passes through both simultaneously? That seems to be the case with the droplets.

Автор Pedro Damas ( назад)
Man, I have a PhD in Physics and I was astonished by this =O This is amazing how a classical particle - wave interaction may replicate quantum effects so well! amazing job!

Автор Grzegorz Cichosz ( назад)
This is more logical and easier to understand. It makes describing world easier. Therefore it can lead us forward - trying to understand these waves (if they exist) can teach us.

But superpositions and other copenhagen things are much more attractive

Автор Joshua Soanes ( назад)
does this mean that at absolute zero particles would seize to exist ?

Автор matthhias brown ( назад)
I am confused

Автор Alastair Carnegie ( назад)
I am 65 now, and a "Heretic", and Heretics are not allowed to take exams, because they might influence the 'Examiner' to accept the heresy as a better explanation. We are called "Exhibitioners" and are given access to any University we like, in order to mentor post graduate students with our crazy ideas. Momentum is a "Vector Force". Directed and stored kinetic energy in motion. Sir Isaac Newton's Law. "Every Action has an equal and opposite reaction." ... we do not need to violate this Law to demonstrate that "For some actions, there are equal and reinforcing equivalent actions that add to the initial reaction. A clear demonstration of Anti-Gravity for instance. The experiment requires 'Mirror Symmetry. and at least a dual track. Two weights are dropped from the top of a Pillars of God Standard UFO. ...On the way down a linear motor accelerates them. This produces a Newtonian reaction that opposes the Force of Gravity. The vector force is part up and part down. more up the faster the acceleration. At the base are two balanced masses suspended on a pivot. Magnetic bounce is very efficient, no heat is generated. Think of Two double headed Thor Hammers  Cross beams ensure the dropping mass makes synchronous collision with two of the hammer heads positioned each side in mirror symmetry Just like Newton's Cradle and elastic collisions, momentum is conserved as the falling objects transfer their Kinetic energy and Momentum to the equal weight Thor Hammers, Linear Momentum becomes Angular Momentum, and there are forces of centripetal acceleration as well, but they are cancelled by the double headed Thor Hammer Heads. Those 'centrifugal forces are in equal and opposite directional vectors....So both hammers rotate through a subtended angle of 90 degrees, and collide with each other in another 'Elastic Bounce' These forces are at right angles, are in mirror symmetry, and are perpendicular to The Tower Of God Anti-Gravity Thruster. The pair of double headed rotary Thor Hammers rotate back the way they came. through a subtended angle of 90 degrees again. Their angular momentum is transferred back to the "Drop asses" that in turn hurtle back towards the top of The Tower Of God, but on the way up heir kinetic energy is extracted and sent to another pair of falling masses. As the UP weights are decelerating, the Vector Force is "UP" and the matching down falling mass is accelerating the Newtonian Equilibrium force is also "UPWARD2 as well, and the only downward force is from Gravity and the Inactive mass The Towers of God UFO inert structure. All the active forces increase or decrease to the square of the velocity. and inactive mass as well as active mass is of course a linear function. So in conclusion, the Stronger The Magnetic Bounce, the faster the allowable velocity.

Автор Gartral ( назад)
why not both? why NOT be dialectical, what in any experiment dictates that the two opposing, but seemingly accurate theories aren't BOTH correct and there's just something that we are collectively too ignorant to see?

Standing/Pilot wave theory would make sense especially if we take into account that the wave function reverberates and those echoes interact with each other, this very much explains the pseudo-random patterns that we see in the field confinement. and the Copenhagen interpretation is correct in that "results speak for themselves" but what it ignores very obviously is that "The results dictate themselves" which is to say that the results are there because the results are what we see, but we can't see the underlying mechanics that are causing the results.

I'm interested in corresponding with you, Derek!

Автор Crazy Pug ( назад)
This makes sooooo much sense with respect to the double slit experiment.

Автор Truckee Lynch ( назад)
How would pilot wave theory explain the results of the double slit experiment when they try to observe which slit the particle passes through resulting in a standard (two slit)distribution? Does the act of observing de-cohere the wave so the particle is only influenced by one wave? If that is true wouldn't it have a 50% chance of also stopping the particle?

Автор Ricardo Roldan Smirnov ( назад)
This video led me to a question. If we supose Light have a Pilot Wave that produce the dispersion in the Double Slid Experiment, maybe that experiment in space(vacuum) would produce a lettle diferent pattern as those "pilot waves" won't interact with other particles, as in the original experiment.
Just a though, I have limited knowledge on this and for sure didn't use it before writing this.
However would apreciate clues and opinions.

Автор woodsoundsflutes ( назад)
Sure makes me think that Ether is real.

Автор HuKu TON ( назад)
I see walkers but where is Rick, Carol and Michonne?

Автор Jedadiah Tucker ( назад)
measuring witch slit the particle went through removes the interferance, can this be done with pilot waves. if so can it be done with the droplets?

Автор GalactiNaut ( назад)
Definitely the pilot wave.....I mean it makes a lot of sense and seems much more like a realistic idea of how it really works.

Автор max hammen ( назад)
If a thin layer of air keeps the droplets from entering the oil, why dont they connect with each other, i dont see them bouncing off each other?

Автор Beauregard Hall ( назад)
Dang it. You're using words that I understand, but what you're saying blows my mind too fast.

Автор Scott McGillivray ( назад)
On a different scale, we are particles. Our attitudes, expectations, and beliefs (oscillations) generate the circumstances (waves) we encounter. We feel that circumstances (waves) are moving us around. We are predestined to follow a path in life (statistical distribution), only as far as we continue to generate corresponding oscillations. Great video!

Автор Joshua Tobler ( назад)
Pilot wave theory has its own problems, but I feel like Occam's Razor favors it over the Copenhagen interpretation. Quantum uncertainty is just too far removed from common sense to be consistent with reality, in my very unsophisticated and uninformed estimation.

Автор Leo AE ( назад)
Totally going with the Pilot Wave Theory :D

Автор obywatelmichal ( назад)
how to put observer?

Автор Shashank Katiyar ( назад)
Except this still doesn't explain the effect of observation. Or Or or...may be electrons float in some filed and behaves similar to this experiment, but the same filed is disturbed by the observation or measurements and the wave is destroyed, eventually making it behave like a particle (that is not driven by wave, but just linear force).
in fact, this experiment should mimic that if you disturb the wave...can you please touch the wave to disturb it and let's see if it becomes straight?

Автор Viknesh Jay ( назад)
Atlast thank you for proving my intuitive daydreams. U dun need to time to tell whats evident.

Автор Martin Hirsch ( назад)
Definitely rad. Now imagine using the pilot wave theory to create a space warp or gravity well.

Автор Jieun Lee ( назад)
Any REAL Walkers out here???

Автор Gunther Ultrabolt Novacrunch ( назад)

Автор neha rawal ( назад)
This is awesome!! Never heard of such a beautiful classical analogue or explanation for the pilot wave theory...Superb
It seems now I clearly understood the pilot wave theory

Автор P.R. Gaming ( назад)
Is it possible that the Copenhagen Interpretation and the Pilot wave theory are both aspects of a hidden entity, except in different realities?

Автор P.R. Gaming ( назад)
i have a proposal...... i guess that it is possible to say that rogue planets... or even entire galaxies behave like the droplets on their pilot waves.

i think this because if gravity "bends" space fabric so to speak, then the gravitational mass of a planet would create these waves.... or, on much larger scales..... galaxies. Remember, these celestial bodies are never stationary, plus given their weight on space time.... when they move in a direction. they may compress space fabric in front of them upwards and stretch the space fabric behind them downwards. I really love delving into these philosophical and boggling realities so keep them coming

Автор t- rex ( назад)
this exp. also explains gravity

Автор Itsiwhatitsi ( назад)
My theory is that in the superposition electron is going through 2 different parallel world of probability, than our measurements forced the particle to be in just one world of probability. Every macro things like people for example can be every second in a sort of "superposition" of what will happened in the future following a not infinite way of probability . But big things must follow just one single path cause are too big to follow extra dimensional "paths". "Paths" are just what we, as humans; call "destinies"

Автор x0pht ( назад)
damn, i was just about to adapt to simulation hypothesis so that I can wrap my head around all the weirdness about quantum mechanics... I'm so glad I see this video before taking the red pill!

Автор Griffin Pitts ( назад)
is it odd how im fifteen and more or less understand this?

Автор Prem Rao ( назад)
I'm trying to do this experiment, but the silicone oil I have is too thick (350 cst). How can I decrease the viscosity?

Автор DocThorium ( назад)
How does this explain the fact that particles act like bullets when you observe them?

Автор Rahul Ajith ( назад)
is it the viscosity of the liquids that creates the standing wave???

Автор nedmano ( назад)
so electrons could be physical matter traveling in a sea of waves?

Автор Taylor Hayden ( назад)
I love fractal geometry so incredibly much.

Автор Michael Coulter ( назад)
Yes, I like Pilot Wave Theory. It is now my preferred interpretation, not that my opinion carries any weight.

Автор giovanni sassano ( назад)
the wave function of/is the interaction of the spacetime on the particle's causality, if you have a true particle in absolute  nothing  [ not even in any dimensional time paradox you'd find the particle would have no wave].

Автор The Truthful Channel ( назад)
It's not about what you are more comfortable with. You just need to acknowledge that there are multiple competing theories and you do not need to settle for one or the other until further empirical evidence is presented that would lead to a decisive conclusion.

Автор dumbcreaknuller ( назад)
if the electron created a wave, what is the wave made of? whats waving? it can't just wave itself, and then bounce of its own wave by waveing?

Автор Lisa Thurman-Kazempour ( назад)
Love listening to and learning from you!

Автор Finnagin Frost ( назад)
I wonder what fraction of people will state their preference for Pilot Wave Theory because it's easier to fit in a brain. No hate to them, if a simplification is way easier (AND YOU KNOW IT"S A SIMPLIFICATION AND ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT IT WILL MAKE MISTAKES), then use it until you're prepared to use a less-simplified form.

I'm largely curious about essentially the question of whether Quantum Mechanics is weird because it doesn't fit our expectations, or if we are weird to assign weirdness to parts of the world we don't expect; And, how do people in various states of having considered that question react to a sudden decrease in perceived 'necessary' weirdness.

Автор HoukouUkage ( назад)
I've never heard of the pilot wave theory, but it makes sense. If this theory was built on and expanded I would easily accept this over the randomness of Copenhagen's super positioning theory. Not that I mind the idea that the universe is in chaos constantly, I think even if pilot waves still fit into that idea, just that it adds a more ordered chaos.

Автор Aeres Esdori ( назад)
The similarities are amazing! I need to look this up. Thank you for the great content.

Автор Matthew Prestine ( назад)
zoom in so we can see a closure picture of the droplet it self. Are they in rotation?

Автор Shinku Toner ( назад)

Автор bugfrag ( назад)
Very nice video / visualization of the process.
Your videos are always excellently done.
However water droplet experiment is not quantum mechanical object, as you mentioned.
Observation of which slit the particle goes does not collapse the wave function!
There is also Wheeler's delayed choice experiment (ps: it would be great if you can make a video of it)

Автор Brock Fettes ( назад)
the problem with the Copenhagen interpretation is the same as the problem with the many world's interpretation-- they both give consciousness a central role in the universe, and particularly in quantum events. DeBroglie - Bohm theory doesn't just reproduce all the results of quantum mechanics--it does so without presupposing an observer.

Автор Jack Gardel ( назад)
Damn, I'm glad I'm taking honors chemistry otherwise I would not understand what you are talking about at all xD

Автор Vito Hall ( назад)
unless I missed it I still don't see an explanation of how observing and not observing makes the wave function collapse..still really love it tho

Автор Vito Hall ( назад)
this is an amazing video..i love it..gives me all kinds of new things to think about..

Автор turtlellamacow ( назад)
This is an excellent video but my only complaint is that it doesn't really discuss the shortcomings of pilot wave theory. I'm seeing a lot of comments like "well this seems much more plausible and intuitive than the Copenhagen interpretation so I think it's probably right" and that's what the video seems to suggest. But there are good reasons that pilot wave theory isn't mainstream - e.g. it requires nonlocal hidden variables (faster-than-light interactions)!

Автор Abeer Amir ( назад)
but why do their pattern dissapear when the path is observed
what happens to the hidden global variables then ????

Автор Bibs Fossati ( назад)
I thought for the double slit experiment an interference pattern is created, but if a detector is placed at one of the openings then the results are a single clump behind that opening which would be the same as if there was only one opening. That wouldn't happen in this interpretation?

Автор Cause Effect ( назад)

Автор DomusUlixes ( назад)
@veritasium, great video. I've always been a fan of Copenhagen interpretation ever since I was a kid. So, my mental challenge from me to you:

You know enough now, to look up Wheeler's Delayed choice experiment. And (instead of just following Copenhagen Interpretation) imagine the wave carrying droplets. And try to imagine some other (deterministic) wave propagating, that affects the present direction, whilst simultaneously affecting the past direction, without breaking the arrow of time.

Автор Oussama Gassab ( назад)
i have a question about the screen distance. if the distance is far away from the double slits, the interference of the wave will decrease and the droplet wave will return to its origin state (like that it didn't pass through the double slits). does that occur in droplet experiment (your experiment) if yes, does it occur in quantum mechanics?

Автор John Campbell ( назад)
This might be the only comments section on YouTube where someone isn't calling someone else an asshole.

Автор Jonaca Carr ( назад)
The BEST explaination ever. This is a real paradigm shifter. Awesome

Автор Karin Rodrigues ( назад)
This is ridiculously awesome! :-) No I have to adjust some of my own theories :-P

Автор Paul Richter ( назад)
Pilot wave! Hands down. Completely lame to think about the Copenhagen interpretation. The idea that whole universes are created at every decision tree violates not just common sense, but the conservation of energy, and not by a small measure, but exponentially!

Автор Jan ( назад)
One of the best videos you have ever made :)

Автор Bryant Meyers ( назад)
Thank you for the thought provoking video. It is worth emphasizing that Bell's theorem and the experiments by Aspect and others do NOT rule out non-local hidden variable theories, such as David Bohm's for example. You definitely can have a deterministic theory that fits the experimental data, but it is NECESSARY to include the spooky action-at-a-distance, otherwise it will not work.
In my opinion, I think Occam's razor actually favors ordinary quantum mechanics, but it is nice having different viewpoints to illuminate the mystery of the Quantum Realm.

Автор Rhett R ( назад)
Let's see: Quantum Mechanics only makes probability predictions. No mechanisms are inherent in the theory itself.

So we could posit:

A) A simple physical interpretation that fits the probabilistic prediction... even if it doesn't quite explain everything.


B) An "article of faith" that requires an almost complete rejection of common sense, determinism, and the very physical reality of matter itself, adds some mysterious mechanisms that might make copies of the entire universe, except for one small deviation -- probably billions (or way, way, way more) of times per second -- squared, (e.g. accelerating since the beginning of time itself) because every iteration adds more universes that must now split again! (Ignore that pesky theory about not being able to create mass from nothing -- QM is much more powerful than God -- He supposedly only created ONE universe... QM has created untold googolplexes of new universes in the time you've read this... and in some of them this comment doesn't even have any typos. ;-)

Or at very least, the "standard (Copenhagen) interpretation" requires the idea that the entire universe exists in some sort of "quasi" state until "observed. (Whatever the hell that means... Recorded by a computer? Photographed? Observed by a garden slug? Or a human? Or maybe God Himself needs to observe the universe before it can exist. (Just try to get a straight answer to that from a true QM believer.) [You do know that Schrodinger was making fun of this interpretation with his "cat" -- which has now become a new "article of faith" for QM -- he must be spinning (+/- 1/2, of course) in his grave.]

The clear answer is, of course, "B". How else do you think we can be arrogant sanctimonious assholes if the common man might be able to claim to understand basic physics. Not to mention, this gives us a good excuse to persecute those heretical unbelievers as backwards racist redneck morons who couldn't spell "physics" without an "f". (Plus, it makes a great (but *way* overused) plot device for Science Fiction -- everything is the same as the universe you know, but in *this* universe, Abraham Lincoln shot John Wilkes Booth, causing....)

(From which, of course, it follows that there is *some* universe in which arrogant physics prigs are actually human and can rationally discuss alternatives to their "theories" without resorting to name calling and insults.) (But not this one, of course... soon to be demonstrated below. ;-)


Автор Timothy Alvis ( назад)
I'm fine with either one, just tell me which one is right.

Автор DonCorleoneQ8 ( назад)
One word will destroy this analogy.

Автор Nettles' Cats ( назад)
But isn't there a big difference in the way subatomic particles and molecules move?

Автор Tom DUPUIS ( назад)
You do not pronounce his name "Broglie" you pronounce it "Breuil" in French , type it on Google translate speaking system you will see it is different 😉

Автор Azam Khan ( назад)
This is a good representation of the double-slit experiment. But even after observing which slit the drop goes through the wave function does no collapse

Автор patrick oviatt ( назад)
hmmm... this doesn't explain the lack of interference patterns when detectors are used on the photon and electron experiments, though. If pilot wave theory is accurate, then that needs to be addressed, I think. Don't get me wrong, I still love this video, it's an awesome visualization aid for wave interference, and particle interference with it's own wave.

Автор Tyler Mauldin ( назад)
What a beautiful video! Thank you for this! :D

Автор aanchal singla ( назад)
Before this video, I was a die-hard Copenhagen interpretation believer. It's a very fascinating and surreal way of looking at things, but this was so incredibly well put. Pilot wave theory is finally clear to me
How does this explain the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment??
(Not that Copenhagen does that very well)
It just keeps boggling up my mind. It would be really awesome if you could expand on that one area

Автор Lew Sheen ( назад)
I have to admit that I'm in awe of most of the discussion below. It gives me hope for the future that, as a post-drumpf-election American citizen, there are SO MANY inquisitive and knowledgeable people out there!

Anyway: As far as I understand Quantum Electro-Dynamics (QED), all leptons are just 'disturbances' in their own unique and universal quantum fields. For example - the phenomena we measure as 'electrons' are just 'bumps' in a single, continuous, universe-spanning 'quantum electron field'. This seems to explain entanglement - the apparent FTL communication of information is in fact nothing more than a contiguous field reacting INSTANTLY, AS A WHOLE, to a stimulus. Alain Aspect proved that non-locality is a true and valid charactristic of our universe, information CAN travel FTL between entangled particles, and QED suggests this result.

So DeBroglie-Bohm Pilot Wave Theory requires something to be 'waving' and interacting with the particles we observe... Couldn't that 'something' the relevant QED lepton field?

Автор Fourth-Dimensional Quasar ( назад)
Pilot-wave theory was discredited not because a different interpretation won, but because it couldn't properly explain what was observed. The Copenhagen theory is fine for some things, but even as far back as Schrodinger we knew there was more to it. Our current understanding of quantum mechanics is not perfect, but going backward to less complex models with one fifteenth the explanatory power isn't going to help us. Whether the answer is in a unified field theory, quantum gravity or what have you, there isn't really much purpose in dwelling on old mechanics from the classical era. We have quantum mechanics because that stuff just doesn't work.

Автор mrdave2112 ( назад)
Is quantum mechanics real or imaginative? Never mind. That is not a clear question in and of itself.

Автор Wanderer - ( назад)
F@#$ YES! I saw something like this, same experiment, big aquarium with water and ultrasound and water drop walking through double-slit. Tried to find it after a while, to refresh knowledge, but failed. And now acidently i found this video! Awesome!

Автор azqwsexdrcftvgybhunj ( назад)
Can't this be simpler . I am just 12 . Still struggling to understand whats going on.

Автор Plaar ( назад)
How does the pilot wave theory explain the collapse of the wave function where the interference pattern disappears after measurement?

Автор K_ Ralph ( назад)
Pretty sick how a photon moves at the fastest possible speed while its bouncing arround like it doesent know where to go. Imagine it would just move straight forward! :)

Автор valon dedalus ( назад)
This did sound logical. Question though? Whereas electrons exist in a "3 dimensional" space, the behavior of the droplet and wave "analogy" is taking place in a "semi" 2 dimensional plane. I see that the results of the latter elegantly explain the former, but could it be that it is just that, "an elegant coincidence"?

Автор David LEE ( назад)
i dont think life is randomly created but can behave randomly

Автор jordan fink ( назад)
i thought that standing waves were waves that don't move up and down.

Автор Zena O'Brien ( назад)
I prefer Pilot Wave Theory myself. The Copenhagen Interpretation seems paradoxical to me and I don't like it. There could always be a new better theory that comes along though.

Автор NGC6144 ( назад)
How is it that interference i.e. detection destroys the pilot wave but the particle-wave keeps on going? Back to Copenhagen.

Автор Bill Swingle ( назад)
Consider looking into solitons.

Автор Ruud Loeffen ( назад)
I think that the Pilot Wave theory is the beginning of understanding a long range of physic phenomena, especially with the help of fluid dynamics, that will guide scientists to understand unsolved mysteries like gravitation, motion of planets and the universal space-time. Thanks to seeking elements of truth in stead of mysterious behavior of unknown phenomena.

Автор Can Acz ( назад)

Автор smarter1004 ( назад)

Автор Jason Park ( назад)
I wish I could be in a superposition of eating pizza and drinking coke at the same time

Автор Александр Лосев ( назад)
I have not read all comments. I apologize if this is someone asked. What about a violation of Bell's inequality? It says that probabilistic interpretation is correct. It is necessary to think... Anyway, the analogy is simply gorgeous!

Вставка видео:


Поиск Видео

Top Видео


Seo анализ сайта