Is This What Quantum Mechanics Looks Like?

  • Published on Nov 2, 2016
  • 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

Comments • 7 131

  • Matthew Bay
    Matthew Bay 7 hours ago

    Hmm that droplets looks similar to two blackholes orbiting each other casuing garavitational wave on spacetime

  • steve c
    steve c 22 hours ago

    The pilot wave theory makes a lot more sense than this quantum crap that they try to pass off as science. Sorry, but making up a bunch of crap and saying, "it works mathematically", is not science. Its unbelievable to me that people actually try to pass Quantum physics off as real science, when it obviously isn't.

  • A Google User
    A Google User Day ago

    Would like you repeat this, but instead of hard barriers - instead use the barriers that can sometimes be crossed.

  • An artist theory on the physics of 'Time' as a physical process. Quantum Atom Theory

    Could the great similarity between fluid dynamics and quantum mechanics be because everything is based on the same universal process? This idea is based on: (E=ˠM˳C²)∞ with energy ∆E equals mass ∆M linked to the Lorentz contraction ˠ of space and time. The Lorentz contraction ˠ represents the time dilation of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. We have energy ∆E slowing the rate that time ∆t flows as a universal process of energy exchange or continuous creation. Mass will increase relative to this process with gravity being a secondary force to the electromagnetic force. The c² represents the speed of light c radiating out in a sphere 4π of EMR from its radius forming a square c² of probability. We have to square the probability of the wave-function Ψ because the area of the sphere is equal to the square of the radius of the sphere multiplied by 4π. This simple geometrical process forms the probability and uncertainty of everyday life and at the smallest scale of the process is represented mathematically by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π. In such a theory we have an emergent future unfolding photon by photon with the movement of charge and flow of EM fields. This gives us a geometrical reason for positive and negative charge with a concaved inner surface for negative charge and a convexed outer surface for positive charge. The brackets in the equation (E=ˠM˳C²)∞ represent a dynamic boundary condition of an individual reference frame with an Arrow of Time or time line for each frame of reference. The infinity ∞ symbol represents an infinite number of dynamic interactive reference frames that are continuously coming in and out of existence.

  • JDK Productions
    JDK Productions 4 days ago

    Pilot wave all the way! Bring on the EM drive!

  • Adis Hadzo
    Adis Hadzo 4 days ago

    This theory works only when particles were not "observed".

  • Frode Lund
    Frode Lund 8 days ago +1

    Yes, the Walkers sometimes cross barriers and then Rick will have to interfere with them.

  • Eduardo Franco SOTELO BAZAN

    The problem is: the pilot-wave must to collapse at moment to observation, because the particle is measurment but the previous wave must to disappear; instead both (pilot wave and its particle) are still existing.
    This pilot wave and particle existing simultaneously contradicts the principle of complementarity.

    • Eduardo Franco SOTELO BAZAN
      Eduardo Franco SOTELO BAZAN 9 days ago

      That analogy is consistent with out collapse or any measurment, just evolution by schrödinger's ecuation.

  • Ömer Furtun
    Ömer Furtun 10 days ago

    I know this is not a recent video but Is this a theory that has recently gained momentum in the scientific community or is this something you thought would be interesting to show us? I'm just curious

  • kwatzemann
    kwatzemann 11 days ago

    Has there been some deleting of comments here. A year ago I visited this video and remarked to my self that the top comment was brilliantly funny. Can't seem to find it anymore?

  • forestsoceansmusic
    forestsoceansmusic 12 days ago

    Wouldn't it be great if we allowed even more than two competing theories for ALL fields of science (instead of subtle totalitarian "standard theory"s). And wouldn't it be great if ALL scientists had no emotional investment in any theory, but could dispassionately investigate them all without any subjective "likes" and "dislikes" (prejudices).

  • forestsoceansmusic
    forestsoceansmusic 12 days ago

    "Does this mean that this is what quantum particles are actually doing? No." Instead of "mean" you should have used the word "prove". This doesn't prove the case, but it is a good theory/model for explaining the observed results of quantum experiments. Certainly this is a better 'Occam's Razor' model, not needing: "spooky action at a distance", "superposition", and "parallel universes".

  • forestsoceansmusic
    forestsoceansmusic 12 days ago

    "If there's any uncertainty it's just due to our ignorance of what's actually going on." I've always thought that. Bye bye Nazi Werner Heisenberg's theory (who confused our ignorance with what actually is). And Heisenberg was Not just one of those people who had to work for the new Nazi government (back then) by default; no, he was an avid Nazi Party member long before they seized power.

  • Jerry Crow
    Jerry Crow 12 days ago

    I figured it out. WOW how simple. Memorize 100 "physics phrases" of five words each into sentences, and then combine five of them them randomly into paragraphs. Again, combine five of them into a paper. Combine five papers and you have a thesis. Combine five theseses (sprinkeled with homework, papers, a mid-term and final) and you have a course. Combine five courses per year for five years and earn a masters. Add five more semesters and a 200 page book and you have earned a PhD. Welcome abord Doctor. Then, regurgitate the above to students and ask them if they are too stupid to get it. Those that say they got it become teacher's assistants.
    Everyone else drops out and gets a job at Starbucks. Double done! PS You need a minor in graphic design.

  • Andrew Basilio
    Andrew Basilio 12 days ago

    This is a good video. Love the perspective

  • Kelsey Brennan
    Kelsey Brennan 13 days ago

    are you single and do you like long walks on beaches?

  • Shiva Gali
    Shiva Gali 13 days ago


  • Robert Warren Gilmore
    Robert Warren Gilmore 13 days ago

    The Copenhagen interpretation has always eluded my intuition. I'm not sure of how to conceptualise randomness apart from saying that it's a description of ignorance.

  • Hello kids Lotus
    Hello kids Lotus 13 days ago

    pilot wave

  • Peppermint
    Peppermint 14 days ago +1

    Lets just say that I wont be very surprised if it turns out Einstein was correct all along :)

  • Walt F.
    Walt F. 18 days ago

    This is a very thought-provoking video. Thanks! That's really all I ask for - the provocation of thought.

  • Tom OR
    Tom OR 18 days ago

    Its like warp!

  • Apex Tyrannis
    Apex Tyrannis 19 days ago

    Has this experiment been done with a single slit? Because photos turn into a probability wave with only one slit as well. And if there is not a second slit for the wave will the droplet of oil still interfere with its self and create a probability wave?

  • Brian Kadrovach
    Brian Kadrovach 19 days ago

    All models are wrong
    Some are useful.

  • Rondo Cat
    Rondo Cat 20 days ago

    But what does it add to this idea when you know photons (according to theory) are traveling always at light speed (while getting bounced around when not in vacuum) and do not experience time ? For photons themselves time does stand completely still always and because of that a photon experiencing traveleling instantly to anywhere in the universe (if the theory is correct).

  • DTube
    DTube 20 days ago

    Pilot waves for me!!!

  • Sastra R
    Sastra R 20 days ago

    I suggest pilot wave theory

  • Zer0Kids
    Zer0Kids 21 day ago

    I have to admit I'm a fan boy, however, this is (to me) your most profound film. Thanks man, I Really hope we meet someday. I have this sense we will... but it won't be for a while. Until then, thanks.

  • The7thSeason
    The7thSeason 21 day ago

    Pilot wave theory :)

  • ruru 48
    ruru 48 21 day ago

    Pilot Wave Theory because the universe can't just peakaboo

  • Mr. Nac
    Mr. Nac 22 days ago

    Pilot wave is true , quantum mechanics must have built up on bad conclusion

  • El preguntón
    El preguntón 22 days ago

    Voto por el _ápeiron_

  • Kevin Smith
    Kevin Smith 22 days ago

    Pilot wave 👍

  • Free Saxon
    Free Saxon 22 days ago

    So the particle reacts with the wave it created ! In space time?

  • Gagan Punia
    Gagan Punia 23 days ago

    universe is remarkable! !!!!!!!!

  • Siddhant Saxena
    Siddhant Saxena 23 days ago

    That's an amazing demonstration! But what about the part when we see a very consistent difference in interference pattern based on whether the particle is being observed or not!!

  • tareqskh
    tareqskh 24 days ago

    "Does this mean that this is really what quantum particles are doing? No". Why not? Its quite convincing. It is reminiscent of the analogy of the weight on a fabric sheet to show bending of space by relativity.

  • David Campos
    David Campos 24 days ago

    The only observations that have value are of objects one at a time through a double slit. And not automatically excepted as they have always been in the past.

  • 쿠스코 TV
    쿠스코 TV 25 days ago

    is there anyone can explain observer effect by this theory?? if this theory is correct, electron should always make interference pattern whether we observe or not. help plz :ㅇ

  • AWatcher
    AWatcher 28 days ago

    Quite inspiring! The wave functions is unknown. I guess it maybe pushing the particle and it maybe some sort of subatomic wormhole with entanglement during the double slit experiment, and closed timelike curve like photons traveling backwards in time and interacting with itself.

  • Aggelos Gekas
    Aggelos Gekas Month ago

    the pilot wave theory suggests that there are speeds faster than light

    • mike4ty4
      mike4ty4 24 days ago

      Yes, in a sense. However, the faster than light speeds are not believed to be observable, because we still cannot _predict_ the particle's position to more than the probability |psi|^2 as in standard QM. It _has_ a definite position before we make the measurement, but all we can _know_ is the probabilities from the wave function psi. (This is the main difference with standard QM. Standard QM says it _does not have_ a definite position before the measurement, only an ill-defined one determined up to the probability distribution.) On the other hand, there is some suggestions that in BQM it may be possible for an "off-equilibrium" distribution to exist in which case that one could potentially observe this (in particular the |psi|^2 law breaks down and one can measure more precisely than the Heisenberg uncertainty principle's limit - perhaps, this is what the "Heisenberg Compensators" do in Star Trek :) Star Trek's universe is a BQM universe as there's some way to make off-equilibrium distributions possible and that is used in the transporter :) Too bad the writers didn't seem to know about this, it would make a rather compelling speculative justification for that technology AND would be consistent with Star Trek's universe as one where FTL is possible.), and also refute BQM if it doesn't happen, but there is as of yet, I believe, no known way to attempt to induce such a distribution: it appears to be rather similar to the second law of thermodynamics, in particular that law can in theory break down but it requires extremely unlikely (as in "odds that make winning the lottery look a googol times more common than breathing") events to occur to see a violation. Thus unless there is some radical breakthrough on either the theoretical or experimental front, no observation of faster-than-light action by BQM, if it exists or not, will be possible.

  • Anup Pandey
    Anup Pandey Month ago

    Amazing!!!!! Got to know about a new thing.

  • Rajarshi Bandopadhyay

    I truly do love this theory!
    If someone had just told me about the Pilot Wave theory all those years ago when I was a little boy desperately trying to wrap my head around the weird concepts of the Copenhagen Model...

  • Dutch Courage
    Dutch Courage Month ago

    I'm all for Pilot Wave Theory ... But also for science, science isn't a definition, it's experimental/observational concluding, and if there are two theories some dudes can not decide on which it is, SCIENCE PROOFS which it is !

    • Dutch Courage
      Dutch Courage 23 days ago

      @mike, weird, it says 3 replies but your answer doesn't show up? do have a partial response in my notifications but it's just a tiny bit :( ... anyways, i know how science works ;) Msc. and Bsc in another field ;) is all i can say. Hope you can somehow repost your response so that maybe i can respond to it some more.

    • Dutch Courage
      Dutch Courage 24 days ago

      So basically if i say that pixies are splitting up the quantum in the 1th dimension and carry each halve through each split to then put it back together and let it go it's merry way, you CAN NOT tell me that's wrong? ... funny ^^
      Well i gave my preference, because the other seems 'further out', basically 'if two theories compete the simpler and more obvious theorie feels like it could be closer to the truth than one that's more complicated and less obvious.' ... know it's not real science, but if you give it some thought, it makes more sense than picking the more complicated one. (and yes, that is in support of my pixie theorie ;) given you want to argue that my pixie theorie can not be true for that reason, but the theories proposed here are equal).
      ps. I am an amateur physicist, or simply somebody interested in all sorts of sciences and knowledge :) ... personally i feel that our understanding of QM could be increased if we adopt another way to look at how we construct the dimensions. I watched the youtube series 'the Xth dimensions explained' a coupe of years back and though about this for quite some time and though about how it might be wrong. And came up with a different setup... The 0th dimension is the time dimension, it's a vector that points forward in all directions, seeing there are no space dimensions in this dimension, it can ;) and it's how we assume time works, it goes forward everywhere regardless how you move or in which direction. Then at a 90 degree angle there is a vector that designates a point, either a point in time, or time through a point. Then adding another vector at this point at 90degree we can designate (the direction of) a line in the 2nd dimension, add another vector at 90degrees we get a field, add another vector we get a 'cube' (though it's more like a 3sided pyramidal cone) ... and strangely enough we can do so with each dimension still having all degrees of motion free and undefined, so you can go further up. But anyways, for quantum mechanic you only have to work in the 0th and 1th dimension, and if time is equal everywhere, and a point only defined by one vector, then basically where it shows up in 4D space (the traditional 3D world we live in) is irrelevant, we could even find it at 2 different locations, because the time is equal, if time is not equal everywhere the quantum may jump around to exist at it's designated time ... anyways, i only know very few QM effects, basically those that made more popular science, and i have no background in the field and can thus only think about it conceptually, but found it interesting that building up the dimensions in a different way, starting with time in the 0th, then vectors to build up dimension, and understanding degrees of freedom in relation to the objects that could exist in those dimension, gave an interesting logically consistent build that seemed to also sort of explain 'why' (that describe you mention) certain effects/observations might take place ... maybe give it some thoughts in your spare time, as it could also well be the rambling of some amateur wanna be physicist (also recommend watching those videos, mainly the one on the 0th dimension) ;) ... ps. happy new year, and good luck on your endeavors !
      ohw, i would suggest maybe moving into the field of quantum entanglement, if we can get 64 pairs of them working at infinite distance, we can basically build a 64bit interstellar 64bit digital connection. The only tech that Startrek seemed to have never attempted to explain, yet simply used for instant communication across lightyears of distance. Because who in the audience (or at home) wants to 'staytuned' for years to receive an order from the Headquarters. Yeah, i extrapolated that after dutch scientist managed to get an entanglement working on a more spooky distance ^^ ... hey, science without dreams is like butter without the peanut variety. ;) ... w/e you do, follow your passion !

    • mike4ty4
      mike4ty4 24 days ago

      Except that we CAN'T - that's the problem. Not until there's some significant and radical breakthrough in our understanding - because the different "interpretations" do not make any experimentally testable predictions that are at odds with anything in standard quantum mechanics. They change around the "back end" but do nothing to the "front end", as it were. And because there is no prediction, there is no obvious place to start looking for a way to attempt such a proof. It will require more refinement of existing interpretations and more out-of-the-box thinking, or a real serendipitous discovery, before we will be able to actually bring evidence to bear upon the problem. It is a real, serious and genuine gap in our knowledge of the universe and imo one that too often gets glossed over. Physics should not just be about trying to predict experiments I think, but to _describe_ what is actually "going on out there in the wild". That description may not be known to be absolutely what is going on, but we need one. Right now we have a bunch and all of them look equally good because there's nothing they seem to describe better.
      I know! I'm frustrated by it too but that's how it goes!!! :) Aww. And I'm actually getting a degree in Physics, and might even go on to graduate school to be a real research scientist!
      "SCIENCE PROOF" ... yeah, we all would like one. But sometimes we also have to say where we don't know. That's another aspect of science, to be meek and admit where your evidence doesn't let you go far enough. And yet that's where you then need to exercise your imagination, to try and create possibilities with the hope one can be tested. In a way science itself is like the quantum wave function. Our imagination spreads out with all kinds of fantastic possibilities. Then we find evidence. Which narrows it down to one or a few. Then we find something else we don't know and our imagination now spreads out again, but from this new point and not the old one since those possibilities were discounted. And on and on it goes. (Which is kind of how the Bayesian QM approach works :) )
      The important part about this theory to me though it is at least tells me there is _A_ way to understand QM in such a way it can fit in with the world we experience and not seem to utterly contradict it.

  • David Fuller
    David Fuller Month ago

    sqrt(Planck Pressure/Planck Density) = c
    Bulk Modulus & Wave Speed

    • David Fuller
      David Fuller Month ago

      sqrt(((c^7) / ((hbar) * G^2)) / ((c^5) / ((hbar) * G)^2)) = 299792458 m / s

      (c^7) / (hbar * (G^2)) = 4.6332523e+113 pascals

      (c^5) / (hbar * (G^2)) = 5.15518844e+96 kg / m^3

  • Squirrel Darling
    Squirrel Darling Month ago

    Pilot Wave

  • deepmoni hazarika
    deepmoni hazarika Month ago

    but the droplet interacts with other matter, the interference pattern formed is by those 'other matter'. when a single electron passes through a double slit and still forms the pattern, there is nothing else (otherwise the experiment itself will be wrong). so if you say that what happens at the quantum level is actually deterministic then the question will remain what formed the pattern? won't this be more paradoxical?

  • Richie Rich
    Richie Rich Month ago

    Who else is here from PBS Space time?

    • Richie Rich
      Richie Rich Month ago

      I don't have a preference though.

  • Diogenes
    Diogenes Month ago +1

    Isn't this a much simpler hypothesis than the other quantum interpretations? Shouldn't it be prefered over the other ones according to Occam's razor?

  • lucas carter
    lucas carter Month ago

    I wonder if pilot wave theory is the same as quantum mechanics in that that Quantum particles have a "surface tension-ish charge" that if it broken it collapses the wave function. Perhaps the "surface tension" is just made up of charges or interference with the Natural Energy in nothingness like in the "in a nutshell - what is nothing" video. Perhapse observation is s interacting with energy wave holding up the partical ball collapsing it?

  • Smile, Sweetheart
    Smile, Sweetheart Month ago

    Can the delayed choice experiment be somehow replicated with silicone oil?

  • Baghuul
    Baghuul Month ago

    Notice how the smaller droplets interact with the larger ones. Almost like an electron stuck to a nucleus, or atoms coming together forming a molecule. Its only momentary but its fun thinking about it, i guess we like to see patterns that why i look at it that way.

  • goingtoknow
    goingtoknow Month ago

    i think it is PILOT WAVE THEORY which could explain lot of understanding about QUANTUM MECHANICS but it's not the actually same.As each droplet have it's certain a new wave at a time as the times it touches the surface a new wave create but I have little confusion about the waves generate from an electron is it a single wave which redistribute again and again around it in QUANTUM mechanics?

  • Phil Fogle
    Phil Fogle Month ago

    It's a great mistake to assume that, if the math is similar in two analogous systems, so is the underlying physics. After Bell, do pilot waves really make QM any clearer? You still have to deal with non-locality.

    • mike4ty4
      mike4ty4 24 days ago

      It's a mistake if you were to _conclude_ that the physics is similar. But when it comes to _making hypotheses_ you have a great deal of freedom to imagine and draw inspiration from many sources. Given that QM's only deterministic dynamical equation is a wave equation, looking at other wave phenomena is a not entirely off-the-wall bet when trying to account for the when-time or the applicability of the non-deterministic dynamical equation of QM. And so far this hypothesis makes the right predictions for everything we are able to experiment with so we don't seem to have made a mistake with it so far. Namely, insofar as it makes a prediction at all it makes the same predictions as ... standard QM. The problem with that, of course, is we _need_ a different prediction to be able to test it, or a prediction in some domain where standard QM does not apply or was not tested, that we can then test. Yet we don't have that (There is some speculation about a "quantum non equilibrium" state as being possible under Bohmian QM where it would predict deviant behavior from standard QM, but there is no known way to extract from the theory some kind of method to force or induce such a state and thus no way to test whether or not such a thing can actually happen or not and so evidence or falsify the theory.).

  • Dominic Valdes
    Dominic Valdes Month ago

    At least two major differences between bouncing silicon balls and quantum physics. Observing/measuring does not collapse the wave distribution of the tiny bouncing silicon balls. Interference of quantum particles can happen non locally. Sorry, but even if tiny bouncing silicon balls make more intuitive sense ... its still not quantum physics

  • Noah Topper
    Noah Topper Month ago

    Definitely more plausible than the Copenhagen interpretation.

    • mike4ty4
      mike4ty4 24 days ago

      Yeah. Well the real problem with Copenhagen imo is it's not well-formulated or well-defined. Actually this is not entirely different: in Copenhagen you also have a classical component. The problem with Copenhagen is that it is undefined as to the _boundary where_ classical mechanics operates and where quantum mechanics operates. (The "wave function collapse" is said to occur when the two come into contact with each other, and measuring devices are considered classical, but given they are definitely known to be made of quantum-mechanical particles it seems odd to imagine that somehow the laws of quantum mechanics are arbitrarily suspended for them at our convenience.) This doesn't really solve the problem. The original measurement problem is where does the _temporal_ boundary between the deterministic many-possibility evolution and indeterministic reduction to a single classical possibility exist. Copenhagen simply exchanges this temporal boundary question for a spatial boundary question and thus solves nothing. It's just a crap salve that makes it _look_ like you're solving stuff. Bohmian is better than that because it says that _at all times there simultaneously exists a classical and quantum state_ for the system under consideration, so this boundary-making problem does not exist at all, it solves it. FWIW my favorite interpretations are Bohmian and Bayesian (epistemic) QM, the least favorite are Copenhagen and Many Worlds, and everything else is somewhere in the middle.

  • Zuohan Xiahou
    Zuohan Xiahou Month ago

    I like many videos on this channel, and this one has very cool visualization of wave mechanics. But I have to speak against "Pilot Wave Theory" as an alternative to Copenhagen interpretation, which I understand unsettles a lot of people who are interested in physics but haven't studied QM systematically. Einstein was wrong about "god doesn't play dice", as so many experiments have supported QM rather than deterministic theories. If you are interested, EPR paradox and Bell's theorem are good starting points.

  • Colonel Panic
    Colonel Panic Month ago

    Pilot wave for the win. The alternative is magic nonsense.

  • Tony Bobay
    Tony Bobay Month ago

    Could the pilot wave be the reason the EM drive works? Wave interaction creating forward momentum?

    • mike4ty4
      mike4ty4 24 days ago

      I've heard those claims but haven't really looked into the details. My gut would say no because Bohmian pilot-wave QM should not make any predictions different from standard QM. Standard QM doesn't allow for odd thrust, so I don't see why Bohmian QM would do so. Then again modeling the EM drive quantum-mechanically is a problem in Quantum Field Theory (QFT) for the electromagnetic interaction, and there is disagreement as to how to interpret relativistic QFT through a Bohmian framework (e.g. what is the choice of beables? do we go particles first, fields first, or what?).

  • James Sempy
    James Sempy Month ago

    (3:20) de Broglie .... pronounced as: de Broy .....
    the name is from italian origin, not french ....

    • James Sempy
      James Sempy 24 days ago

      + mike,
      he was french, from italian descent .... the name remains italian.

    • mike4ty4
      mike4ty4 24 days ago

      He was French not Italian. So yes, "de Broi" is the correct pronunciation.

  • burgersoft777
    burgersoft777 Month ago

    I would like to replicate this experiment. I was wondering at what sort of frequency range would I need to drive the speaker at. I have an old frequency generator in the shed, and am wondering how to calculate the sweet spot to get this up and running without splattering silicone oil all over the house and thus irritating the wife.

  • Rylan Hunt
    Rylan Hunt Month ago

    wow! amazing! I never heard of this. what were they teaching me in my undergrad!

    • mike4ty4
      mike4ty4 24 days ago

      Dogmatism, if not in science proper then in science education. The honest truth is that the interpretation problem is unsettled as in - completely, because all interpretations make the same predictions as standard QM. It would be better to first teach that QM from a purely mathematical point of view lets us predict experimental results, but because it contains two dynamical laws with no explicitly defined conditions as to the when-time at which they apply except the _observed_ behavior of one law is known to apply with a measurement, then say there is no proven way to resolve this, and offer a set of _possible_ interpretations. Insisting on one, Copenhagen or otherwise (I assume Copenhagen) = dogmatism because there's no evidence in play and no way known to generate any.
      Yes science SHOULD not have dogmatism but science is alas a practice done by PEOPLE, and PEOPLE have a penchant to be dogmatic. So science as it exists in ideal, and as it exists in real life practice, are two rather different things, and unfortunately the latter often fails to live up to the ideals of the former. You might be interested in another Veritasium video here called "Is Most Published Research Wrong?" to see how deep the rabbit hole on this one goes. FWIW there's a lot of online "kook pots" who are often lay observers whose scientific knowledge is lacking and don't make very decent and informed arguments as to the existence of dogmatism in science, and often propose pet theories with basic misconceptions in them, but on the other hand the scientists' reactions to these theories is to just dismiss them by pushing dogma against them, not just evidence, when in reality the better approach is to point out the misconception but have the humility to also admit that real science yes can indeed fall into dogmatism traps too sometimes and is not a perfect practice so at least they are right imo to be skeptical though I think that's rather unfortunate because a lot of science IS really good and we ignore it at our own peril (see, e.g. Global Warming and Vaccines) but "scientists" need to own up some responsibility for this in how they deal with the public. (And while I'm not a full bones-earned scientist yet I'm getting my degree in the stuff, physics and computer science.) IMO the only "kook pot" to get really angry at is the one who tries to con people out of money in fake medical scams, etc. which lead to people dying or losing a lot on false hopes, and if a lot of people who AREN'T scammers have a perception that science is dogmatic, whether they propose ill-informed theories or not due to their own personal speculation (which I believe is a good thing to do, to question things for yourself), perhaps one should investigate at least the reasons for that perception and that's what I advocate. Part of this is, I believe, scientists' attitudes, and part, poor education, and I say especially poor education. (And if we had better education we'd probably have less "kook pots" because people would be more encouraged to also not get too dogmatic about their OWN private speculations either and seek more knowledge if they want to, which is the common failing. They question something - which is !!!!GOOD!!!! - but don't fully understand what they're questioning, and don't see this, because they haven't learned how to or want fame. Real education would, while not making everyone into a scientific expert, at least get people to understand well the basic process of scientific thinking, and also dispel the notion that most scientists are somehow "famous" people. Really, the great man theory of history has to die hard! :) )

  • SpokoSpoko
    SpokoSpoko Month ago

    I just wonder how the pilot wave theory would explain why we get different result in double slot experiment when we make the observation of one of the slot or we don't

  • Proxy 47
    Proxy 47 Month ago

    If I placed detector in front of one of the slits and sent one particle at a time; will the theories, pilot wave and Copenhagen, give different results?

  • Mohamed Lmezouari
    Mohamed Lmezouari Month ago

    all that little stuff are not coincidence but life are coincidence .the first are quantum weirdness the second are
    human madness

  • Derek F
    Derek F Month ago

    Amazing video

  • Yaser º
    Yaser º Month ago

    5:19 "No". Because?
    Wtf, why not, to much sense?
    (nothing personal... get frustrated with all the hocus pokus)

  • Alan Alldredge
    Alan Alldredge Month ago

    Zeno Effect? Anyone? How can we explain how speed of measurement calms this path? And if meausurment causes an interaction, on a dimensional wave thereby changing the patter behavior, is there data for distance and position of that measuring device that correlates to the rebuilding of the probability?

  • Eduardo Mendes Marcondes

    Awesome!! congratz!

  • Daniel Pas
    Daniel Pas Month ago

    Assuming the casimir effect is caused by plates being to close for quanta waves to form, you could conduct an experiment to test for quanta outside of their carrier waves, also assuming the we have instruments that can measure quanta and not the just their waves.

  • Chris Young
    Chris Young 2 months ago

    With the pilot wave theory, couldn't that mean the universe was an infinity of possibilities until the first life form emerged to observe it and it's wave function collapsed?

    • mike4ty4
      mike4ty4 24 days ago

      No that's more like Copenhagen or even von Neumann-Wigner "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation. With pilot wave theory _only one possibility is realized for the definite spatial configuration of particles at each and every moment in time_ , _but_ there is a wave function that is ever-expanding in hyperdimensional configuration space carrying all other possibilities along with it, rippling throughout the cosmos. The other possibilities are not seen, but they contribute to the evolution of the one realized in reality through interference (e.g. the electron goes through the slits. In pilot wave QM, the associated wave function flies through both, giving a possibility to go through both at the same time, then both of those possibilities coming out the other side interfere. The electron itself rides this wave through only one possibility, but its final position on the screen carries a legacy of influence from the other due to the interference on the other side of the barrier.).

  • Derek F
    Derek F 2 months ago

    Very good, Can you do a video for quantum entanglement and pilot wave theory

  • VITA kyo
    VITA kyo 2 months ago

    Is the droplet needed ? Isn't the middle of the wave going up & down sufficient ?

  • Arrow
    Arrow 2 months ago

    Finally something optimistic about the quantum mechanics, although it’s just an analogy and not an explanation

  • mischa wolf
    mischa wolf 2 months ago

    Pilot wave is the only way that quantum physics seem logical. Basically it's like asking an atheist being asked to believe in God when things have a perfectly good explanation. Well pilot wave is a perfectly good explanation as well if you ask me. I wonder if this is catching on in the physics community. It should.

  • Jacob Richardson
    Jacob Richardson 2 months ago

    Thank god. Pilot waves actually make sense.

  • saurabh **
    saurabh ** 2 months ago

    That...gose over my head........

  • Mudfossil University
    Mudfossil University 2 months ago

    Harvard backs up MFU with peer review confirmation... Light is a Vortex energy packet (a particle)

  • Heryck Curioso
    Heryck Curioso 2 months ago

    This guy is good 🤤

  • William Russell
    William Russell 2 months ago control

  • DanielVidz
    DanielVidz 2 months ago

    *I absolutely love this explanation*
    but why would measuring which path a "single particle" took collapse the wave function overall?

  • Shivan
    Shivan 2 months ago

    ...your face looks like quantum mechanics.

  • Eyan Stevenson
    Eyan Stevenson 2 months ago

    Wouldn't the (given) amplification or output of the speaker create a skewed phenomenon? What in the real world would be represented by the speaker here? Gravity? -> if gravity, wouldn't gravitational forces be different at a quantum level?

  • Ronaldo Quintos
    Ronaldo Quintos 2 months ago

    So are you trying to say that adding an observer did not really cause the wave functiom to collapse, but since they were firing one photon at a time, it probably would have taken a ridiculously long amount of time for the wave function to become evident, and the one that becomes evident fist is particle pattern?

  • thejus KT
    thejus KT 2 months ago

    What is the frequency of the sound that you used to do this experiment?

  • yellowball fun
    yellowball fun 2 months ago

    I finally understan quantum mechanics

  • jesse diaz
    jesse diaz 2 months ago

    What if every particle we see has has a counter part in another plan making it appear to be in two places at once or apprear and disappear

  • Nipples The Enchilada
    Nipples The Enchilada 2 months ago

    So you watch Rick and Morty too

  • Noel Helsing Gonzalez
    Noel Helsing Gonzalez 2 months ago

    One thing I dont understand about quantum mechanics is how people often say "it's at two places at once and then collapse when you measure it" Isn't it just that it COULD be at any of these places but you actually find out where it is when you measure it? At least the instantaneous location.

  • Thatguy Man
    Thatguy Man 2 months ago

    How is the interpretation that forces you to give up common sense more widely accepted than the interpretation that makes sense and has a demonstration to accompany it

  • modolief
    modolief 2 months ago

    2:25 -- quantum tunneling !!!

  • CThienV
    CThienV 2 months ago

    Video about simulation hypothesis please.

  • Peh
    Peh 2 months ago

    So, regarding the double slit experiment. The measurement erases the wave, so the photon can't interact with his own wave which went through the other slit and only goes straight to the wall. Thus, we see a different pattern when we try to figure out which slit the photon went through.

  • vikash sinha
    vikash sinha 2 months ago

    Great video !!
    Question: How does the Pilot Wave Theory explain the different results of double slit experiment when we do or do not "observe/measure" the slit through which each electron is passing?

  • Bulgarian Spy
    Bulgarian Spy 2 months ago

    Dude, you deserve your 4.5 million subs ;)

  • Aman Kumar Soni
    Aman Kumar Soni 2 months ago

    finally now i understood the dual nature of quantum particles. Thanks a lot.

  • Aryan Kumar
    Aryan Kumar 2 months ago

    Couldn't light be something like a particle travelling in waves just like water we know that water is a particle moving in a wave form

  • Ben Duncan
    Ben Duncan 2 months ago

    This channel keeps getting better and better!

  • Trenton Price
    Trenton Price 2 months ago

    Not gonna believe this but watching this I had deja vu. I had a dream about this about 11 months ago. Never seen this video, channel, or science of anything like this before.

  • Crick Craze
    Crick Craze 2 months ago

    Hatts Off sir Debroglie ,,,