Quantum Mechanics: Animation explaining quantum physics.

Category : Randomness
Quantum Mechanics: Animation explaining quantum physics.by wpjljron.Quantum Mechanics: Animation explaining quantum physics.Covers all the topics, including wave particle duality, Schrodinger’s cat, EPR / Bell inequality, and the relationship between measurement and entanglement.

Covers all the topics, including wave particle duality, Schrodinger’s cat, EPR / Bell inequality, and the relationship between measurement and entanglement.


Related Posts

25 Responses

  1. ShadoLegend10 April, 2013 at 11:50 am

    Does this mean that if I flip a coin with my eyes closed the coin is both heads and tails until I open my eyes?

  2. Anthony Smith10 April, 2013 at 7:24 am

    Awesome! But what’s with the cat? XD

  3. Mikkel Breum9 April, 2013 at 10:26 pm

    the ‘physical reality’ could be an imagination

  4. Eugene Khutoryansky9 April, 2013 at 4:57 pm

    Everyone, if you liked this video, you can help more people find it in their YouTube searches by clicking the Like button and writing a comment. I will be posting more new physics videos soon, so please subscribe if you want to get notifications when they are ready. Thanks.

  5. Eugene Khutoryansky9 April, 2013 at 4:56 pm

    I don’t think it is practical to make marbles that are small enough for us to be able to see an interference pattern. But the principle is the same both for marbles and for elementary particles. These are universal laws, hence they should apply to all objects.

  6. Live, Love, Laugh9 April, 2013 at 2:24 pm

    So..these marbles…. are you talking about real marbles or particles.

  7. Tyler Bryant9 April, 2013 at 11:05 am

    I loved the vid by the way! However the serious mystical orchestra music mixed with the random cat kind of made it seem silly, and hysterical to me for some reason. Anyhow thanks!

  8. mdiem9 April, 2013 at 3:47 am

    Not random at all. The cat is an invention of Schrodinger.
    I like the nod here, and the twist that the cat is the observer instead of the experimental subject.

  9. Edan Patt8 April, 2013 at 10:36 pm

    I know I’ll hate myself for saying this… but how does observing take anything out of the realm of probability… or better yet, does it even make sense for an object to exist in a realm of probability? Could it be a process is happening faster than we can detect if we observe it that we confuse ourselves with different results being random instead of them having carefully calculated solutions?

  10. Eugene Khutoryansky8 April, 2013 at 12:18 pm

    Looking at the video recorder has the same effect as looking at the detectors.  This is because the video recorder is the detector for the detectors.

  11. Eugene Khutoryansky8 April, 2013 at 10:50 am

    Thanks. I am glad you liked it. And thanks for sharing this video on your pages.

  12. B1oDaX8 April, 2013 at 8:47 am

    Finally the video : ) i am a little bit tired of reading different opinions in books xD i will be sharing this video on facebook and other pages : ) thank you very much for uploading this : )

  13. MrGamer4561488 April, 2013 at 4:27 am

    Cute way to explain physics

  14. Adolf Poole7 April, 2013 at 9:46 pm

    Silly scientists. Why didn’t they ever place a video recorded and let that machine record which detector the particle hit without even looking at the experiment. And as soon as you get the wave results on the wall you then take the recorder and look wtf has happened? Didn’t anyone really came up with this idea?

  15. BiophysicalChemist7 April, 2013 at 8:57 pm

    …as soon as any effect requires the wavefunction of your brain to take a specific state then the other possibilities are eliminated and thus those universes immediately fall out of superposition with the ones that contain your current state of consciousness. Thus as long as you refrain from observing the phenomenon, you can exist in the superimposed universes simultaneously, but as soon as you observe your brain that YOU experience must only observe one and the other decouples.

  16. BiophysicalChemist7 April, 2013 at 8:54 pm

    It is my personal opinion that the many worlds hypothesis best describes the phenomenon at 14:20. A mechanistic explanation, more desirable to some physicists than a “wavefunction collapse” which is slightly ambiguous, would be that there are a large amount of universes that are “close” to each each other and allow interaction at the subatomic level. The wavefunction of your brain exists as a superposition in all of these universes simultaneously, but….

  17. ianmondread7 April, 2013 at 2:47 pm

    Excellent video! Thank you so much for posting it. I am very interested in quantum mechanics/physics but my maths are lacking and level of understanding these bizarre fields of study are as well. This video helps me though. Any chance on upcoming videos describing the standard model? Thats a difficult one for me to grasp…thanks 🙂

  18. arkempire7 April, 2013 at 2:50 am

    the act of observation will influence the outcome even after the particles have gone through the holes. meaning that a future act of observation influences past actions. when you break down these things like this it breaks your mind. please make ur next video about this

  19. Eugene Khutoryansky6 April, 2013 at 7:21 pm

    Thanks. More videos are on their way.

  20. Aggelos730Gr6 April, 2013 at 7:14 pm

    Great videos. Waiting for more of your teaching. 

  21. PSG Mud6 April, 2013 at 5:10 am

    So, trying to understand here. The experiments become compromised because of the equipment used for observing ruins the test? Why is that significant to understand, if equipment ruins the test? It sounds as if, the particles are acting independently from the equipment observing.

  22. Eugene Khutoryansky6 April, 2013 at 2:24 am

    Yes, the equipment observing the particles inherently ends up influencing the results. That is, this is not just a problem due to a lack of technological innovation on the part of the people designing the instruments. According to Quantum Mechanics, any act of measuring the particle inherently ends up changing the outcome. Both the measuring equipment and the observer watching the equipment are always inherently parts of the experiment.

  23. PSG Mud5 April, 2013 at 11:03 pm

    Does this mean observing particles compromise the tests because of the equipment interfering with particles?

  24. Robin Pike5 April, 2013 at 5:04 pm

    Oh and forgot to say, you have presented the concepts very nicely, a good, clear video.

  25. Eugene Khutoryansky5 April, 2013 at 3:13 pm

    Thanks.  I am glad you liked it.

Leave a Reply