Is it possible you could create a KZfaq playlist on quantum, ordering the videos, to help learners to best utilize the content? Would be much appreciated! Great channel

Wave function is also a function of particles rotation which doesn't seem to be taken care by shortinger equation, by the way iam just a poor peasant..

I explain quantum spin in my video at kzfaq.info/get/bejne/adFlfLqdu8qxkqM.html

On the KZfaq app, the subtitles intrusively enable by themselves. Please remove the subtitles until KZfaq sorts that out. Please urge KZfaq to update the KZfaq app to obey my settings for not having captions on automatically. It's been a year already and they still haven't fixed it. My patience has run out.

Very informative. Thanks for sharing, Lord-Jesus-Christ com

+Momchil Momchilov, thanks.

the wave function is described as a rotating helix?

As far as i understand it the "helix" arises when you not just graph out 1 dimension over time or angle but have a complex plane. So for example: y=sin(x) becomes Re=cos(x) + Im=i*sin(x). If that looks familiar, than e^(i*x) might also crossed your eyes. If you exactly one wave with a single frequency component and amlitude, then your signal is a pure helix in this representation of a complex graph. Never forget: a graph is a tool to visualize, not to accuratly depict reality. There is no sinusoidal drawn line in your power outlet either.

Where does the probability wave come from? who made it? Does it come from our consciousness?

+DasIllu is the probability wave in more than one universe?

+luigisf, thanks for that really great compliment.

Thanks for the compliment.

+Eric Kitchen, I am glad to hear that my videos are helpful. Thanks.

+2sheol, I already have a video that discusses the heat death of the Universe. It is the one called "Thermodynamics and the End of the Universe." It is available on my KZfaq home page. Thanks.

+Marek M, I already have several videos on electromagnetic waves. They are discussed in the following videos: "Electromagnetism - Maxwell's Laws", "Waves: Light, Sound, and the nature of Reality", "Polarization of Light" As for electrical impedance, I plan to create a video on AC impedance in the future, but for now, I already have videos that discuss resistors, inductors, and capacitors. These include the videos: "Resistors - Ohm's Law is not a real law" "Inductors and Inductance". I don't yet have a video devoted to capacitors, but capacitors are described in several of my videos, such as: "Voltage multiplier: Generating over 100,000 volts DC" and "Op Amp Circuits" Thanks.

+Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky Great videos! can you make some on logarithms. Thanks.

Your videos are fascinating :) I'd be very recognized in advance if you make one about QED (quantum electrodynamics).

Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky

+Baptiste Loreau, thanks. Glad you liked it.

Don't quantiz your comment again 🙄

@@Trident_Euclid e

@ Eugene Khutoryansky : at 7.54 min.: energy is related to frequency and frequency is no. of rotation of wave. Now when partcle is trapped in 1D box, wavelength is discrete, but frequency (no of rotation) can be continuous...so energy should not be discrete. Here i don't think frequency wavelength relationship is applicable. So how you can explain this???

Ok

Glad you liked my video. Thanks.

@@EugeneKhutoryansky I would only like that you make an explanation for 3D more clear! I find this as important as some research, thank you for your work!

He who claims to understand certainly does not understand.

@@sakkmatt i do not see your point... does that means you dont have a point :o

Ok

+Derek Ojeda, thanks. I am glad to hear that.

He who claims to understand certainly does not understand.

In my approach there is no need to refer to any wave function. Each individual process is described by the non-commutative elements of the phase-space algebra itself. Classical physics uses a commutative phase-space algebra. Classical physics has the Poisson brackets as a vital part of the description. What we have to understand is how that bracket emerges from the non-commutative structure. Now the non-commutative algebra contains two types of bracket, a commutator or Lie bracket (or Lie product to give it its proper mathematical name) and an anti-commutator or Baker bracket ( known as the Jordan product). The Lie bracket becomes the Poisson bracket as we go to the classical limit, while the Jordan product becomes the normal inner product. In symbols (AB + BA)/2 -> AB. The Jordan product is the most neglected product in the whole discussion of the foundations of quantum mechanics. This is not a 'cheat answer’. It's what you have to understand if you really want to the relation between quantum and classical physics. The clearest discussion of this issue is in the paper I have attached. I hope you find it helpful. Basil Hiley However non-commutativity is deeply ingrained in quantum phenomena and is not, in my opinion, “only mathematics”. The early pioneers of QM, such as Heisenberg, Born, Jordan, Dirac and others showed this feature of non-commutativity in great detail. It was Schrödinger’s work that led to the development of a tremendously successful algorithm based on the notion of a wave function which was formalised into the bras and kets that we have got very very used to manipulating. However by identifying the wave function with the 'state of a system’ we have been left with the unsolved ‘problem', the collapse of the wave function. After one hundred years of effort we have been unable to 'solve this problem’. In the last few years I have come to the conclusion that this is unsolvable simply because it is the wrong question as it is based on treating an algorithm rather than a description of an unfolding process. That the quantum formalism was an algorithm was Bohr’s position all those years ago, but he argued that we could not go deeper by attempting to analysing the process because of the 'Principle of Complementary’. This philosophical principle seemed to have universal appeal outside of physics but now, he argued, with the advent of quantum phenomena, this principle also had a role to play in physics, so to Bohr, the principle became a universal principle that applied to all knowledge. The availability of the ‘algorithm’ which was easy to manipulate and lead to experimental verification should be contrasted with the difficulty in understanding non-commutativity, both mathematically and conceptuality. Furthermore it was very difficult to apply it physical problems. Thus the algorithm becomes the ‘only game in Town’ as we learn how to deal with its uncomfortable features. Then there follows an attempt to make the formalism in to an ontology and the result is a plague of interpretations. I have recently published two papers which address directly the challenge of providing a description of this ‘quantum unfolding’ as Dirac puts it. It is a very different approach which is based on an exploration of non-commutative geometry, in the same spirit of Alain Connes but using more physical intuition. It is a long story but I have a lecture on line at which may help. My lecture is Lecture 2 immediately after Roger Penrose’s lecture in the series ‘Mind and Matter’. My lecture was about 'Matter’ not ‘Mind'! Enjoy, Basil.

+OEI, thanks. I am glad that you like my videos.

Thanks for the compliments.

@@EugeneKhutoryansky Thank you for the excellent content! Your visualizations are easily among the best available anywhere.

I am a indian please give me your whatsapp no

@@kmshaloo7111 noh

William Alston i think that's the point

+John Doe you can find the same qualitative explanation for this in Atkin's Physical Chemistry. It's a very delicate explanation i my opinion

+Dimitris Kolokouris Good to know. My Physical Chemistry text book back in the 1980's was Ira N. Levine, copyright 1978. I think there was another text box in the 2nd semester, but I lost it.

+John Doe I am amazed that nobody has ever bothered to use harmonics to explain the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to me before! It seems like a very useful conceptualization, at least once you're comfortable with Fourier series...

Wait isn't it a she???

Narrator is a she (presumably, given voice and the name Kira). Writer is a he (Eugene).

I am the same. If you have any advice or sweet channels to look at please let me know! Thanks!

+Dimitris Kolokouris, thanks. I am glad to hear that my videos have been helpful.

+Sangeet Chand, thanks. I am glad you liked my video and my animations.

Thanks.

Thanks for the compliment about my videos.

much easier*

A video on Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors is coming soon. Thanks.

Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky Hi..I want ur permission to translate ur videos to Urdu/Hindi language. M not earning anything but just adding my little service to my society.

For anything linear algebra, look up 3B1B. They have amazing, very conceptual videos :)

@@lineakristensen1821 Thanks for the reference to linear algebra, Excellent !!

Ok

Thanks for the compliment about my video.

I am glad my videos are helpful. Thanks.

Thanks. All the music in this video is from the free KZfaq audio library, and the names of the songs are the following. Clouds Stale Mate

Yes. More specifically, an orbital happens when the electron's position wave is confined by the electric force of the atomic nucleus. It interferes with itself and stabilizes as a standing wave configuration. This standing wave configuration is an orbital.

Thanks for the compliment.

Thanks for the compliment.

+Josh E, The music is from the KZfaq's free audio library, and the names of the songs are "Clouds" and "Stale Mate."

+Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky Believe it or not, I can't find a video for it. Seems fitting for the topic of the video. :|

@@digitaltheory4534 when you upload a video go to the music library and search for it there

+Following Feynman, thanks. I am glad you liked my video.

Probably that's a good thing. If you had understood everything maybe that'd mean that you wouldn't have understood it properly.

That’s because most of what they are saying is not reality.

With transcendental meditation which unifies ur conciousness wit energy u can see it lol I can see it an it's still alot to grasp but over time I will see it so much an be able to understand it an make this alot easier to understand

@@markfennell1167 it's reality once u bring ur conciousness to a certain level to unify wit it an see the "unseen"

Glad my video was helpful. Thanks.

+Rizwan Awan (TheOnlyRizzy), Glad I was able to help. Thanks.

Thanks for the compliment.

+Marco Mosri, thanks for the compliment.

Thanks. Glad you have you as a subscriber.

Thanks for the compliments. I am glad my videos are helpful.

@@EugeneKhutoryansky Thank you for replying ❤️❤️❤️

+Marko Stojiljkovic, thanks for that really great compliment. Lots more videos are on their way.

+David Caywood, thanks. I am glad you liked it.

Thanks, and I am glad to hear that my video was helpful.

Thanks for the compliments about my video.

Thanks. Glad I was able to help answer your question.

Thanks for the compliments about my visualization.

Thanks.

Thanks. Glad my video was helpful.

The books didn't make sense to you because the info is not true. There are no particles or physical matter. Nothing solid. Only Energy! So called particles are waves of Energy vibrating at different rates of frequencies. Infinite possibilities. An atom and all the sub atomic particles in an atom are empty space of Energy vibrating. The only reason your hand doesn't go through the table is because the table is vibrating at a similar rate as your body.

@@ChrisOakesCO Does that mean the 'strings' (in String Theory) are merely a way of describing those energy waves OR are they actually GENERATING those waves?

@@ParkinT If there's stings there waves, not solid matter. Do you know of anything that's solid? Even a rock or diamond made up of atoms. Atoms aren't solid an the sub atomic particles in atoms aren't solid either. They are all far apart from each other an moving around each other. I'm not saying this in a rude way, just saying there is no solid physical particles. All matter is condensed Energy.

Thanks for that really great compliment.

Glad you liked my video that much. Thanks.

+Rizki Tio, thanks. I am glad you liked my explanation.

Thanks.

+Alexandru Gheorghe, thanks. Though, I plan on eventually having a separate video devoted just to Schrodinger’s equation, and also a separate video devoted to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Thanks for the compliment.

+Александр Князев, thanks. Glad you liked it.

Thanks for the compliment.

Thanks.

Thanks.

Thanks. I am glad you like my video.

Thanks. I am glad my video is helpful. I have a number of other videos like this one which you might also like.