Hi everyone, thank you so much for watching and supporting this channel! Please check out my quantum mechanics playlist for more videos like this one: kzfaq.info/sun/PLOlz9q28K2e4Yn2ZqbYI__dYqw5nQ9DST

Finally all these things are making physical sense. Thanks Parth! I wish millions of high school and college students would watch these videos, think, understand and not be scared of physics. The problem with most textbooks and teachers is that they state "It is so" but do not explain why and why not, what could be an exception and its implication and so on. That's why I always liked people like Wolfgang Pauli. It is said that if he entered a lab, all the experiments would go wrong.

Parth sir, I really wish teachers like you are invited as the Chief Guests! You deserve all the praise in the world for simplifying physics concepts in an intuitive and joyful way, for literally everyone to learn! Please keep going sir! I'm indebted to you a lot, for learning a ton from you!

Hey Parth, could you make a video on Liouville's theorem?

What a thoroughly beautifully explained video. Thank you. I've only ever seen one video before that clearly explains the Pauli Exclusion Principle, but yours is better. You've got the right amount of mathematics in it. Not everyone has Masters degrees in mathematics, as some videos assume, although I'd like to know more about Hamiltonians, Lagrangians, and Fourier Transforms. I don't know if you've done videos on those.

this man have a crystal clear concepts. you beauty, parth legend.

I love your videos. The way you present physical structures are mind-blowing

Wow. Clearest explanation I have seen yet on PEP. Thank you!👏👏👏

Wow wow wow! I enjoyed this video from start to finish. Definitely earned yourself a subscriber

Amazing video. The thought at the end about electrons being fermionic kind of indistinguishable is responsible for life and the universe we see around us is kind of mind-blowing.

A very well presnted video ,as usual. Care taken in the right spots. Beautiful how you attach the mathematical model to explain why the exclision principle exists. What is an interesting thought is that you say if the electron occupies the same spot with another it superimposes into a boson. The thought i have then is , is a boson a superposition (reflection) of fermions superpoitioned

Just discovered your channel. I've liked and subscribed. This is a great explanation.

Loved the video my friend. Simple and to the point. Cheers

Your teaching is great ! I wish if you can make some videos dedicated to mathematics like a playlist of tensors or other mathematical topics needed in physics

That’s an amazing explanation dude, just fantastic!!

Thank you Parth. Love the shows.

I had so much trouble with this but you explained it so clearly, thank you!

As always brilliantly simple!!

Excellent job!!!!I found recently your channel...I have to admit that i am excited by your effort!!! could you make a video about Dirac's equation ?????

Hi Parth, as always your videos are very good at giving a grasp to complex prolem. Would you someday make a video on Feynman's diagram and explain for the layman what's so special about them, did they allow for something new or are just a cool doodle trick ? While I can read the wiki page what make them unique or such a contribution has always escaped me.

Sir , please make videos regarding the vacuum energy and all those related stuffs . I have grown interest in physics on seeing your videos . Keep going sir

just needed this topic!

KZfaq just recommended your excellent channel and I'm very grateful. I've only watched a few videos and intend to continue on. But I have a bit of a quarrel! I will make an assertion regarding electron/fermion spin direction that is very incorrect: There is a direction in the universe such that the spin of any electron is parallel or anti-parallel to this universal (up/down) direction. This direction is a fundamental property of the universe. There's nothing that you have taught us that contradicts this assertion. I believe a lot of your viewers may be learning about spin direction for the first time. Your statement that an electron spin is up, down or both, implies that there are no other directions available. So I would suggest that, since this direction is arbitrary in the sense that it's CHOSEN freely, you should briefly mention this very important fact at the outset. Apologies if you have already covered this topic before. But it's worth a half a sentence to be repeated! Thanks

Thanks parth for wonderful content

Absolutely brilliant video

Excellent explanation.

lovely video parth keep making more vids like this

Super duper helpful, thanks a lot 👍

Many, many thanks for this!

an actualy successful attempt of representation of my feeling : 👌👂👁👄👁👂👌👌 👌💧👌 💧👌 👌 💧👌

Thanks. That was really useful

Simply superb n fantastic

Hey Parth ,can you make a video on your favourite Physics books/STEM books in general which don't involve math beyond high school level?

Great video as always. Is it possible to make a video on Bell Inequalities please?

Good explanation Parth 😊

This is good, subscribed

Thank sir you nailed it🎉

This channel is going places.

HI PARTH, YOUR TEACHING IS AWESOME, APART FROM MY PROFESSORS, I'M LEARNING FROM YOU. KINDLY MAKE VIDEOS ON LINEAR VECTOR SPACE.

Awesome job bhaiya😬

I just can say god blesss you, I finally got it with a source

Wow.... It was awesome 😍

9:38 "Assuming our understanding of QM is at least relatively correct"

Well that was kind of BaSiC concept which is not really hard to find...So please can you start these concepts with some mathematics , it would be quite helpful!😌 B/w your videos are always great!

favorite channel

Proud of you parth...I love to become your student....

Thank you❤🙏..

Wonderful video as always! Just a lingering question, Parth. It seems the Pauli-Exclusion principle is just a bit of math that models fermionic behavior quite well, but it doesn't answer how fermions 'know' the state of the other. Why and how do they do that? I feel I am misunderstanding some basic things here because it would appear every particle is just really good at math, lol.

No frills. Crisp. Liked.

THAT WAS AWESOME

Can you please do a video on the pilot-wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and how it differs from the Copenhagen interpretation then share your views on which you think is the correct interpretation. :)

What are the L and M distinguishing factors?

Hye Parth can you please explain Feynman's path integral formulation?

Thank you

Am enjoying these videos very much, thank you Parth. Can someone help me understand though that if electrons may have spin up or spin down, or have other different quantum numbers or exist on different energy levels; how is it that we can then say electrons are indistinguishable? I am probably missing some point here but if anyone can clarify this for me that will be appreciated. Cheers

fantastic

Hi, Parth just saw your video and its amazing , i am 17 years old and very attracted to physics , i am going to be a physicist , if u have any tips for mr please tell me , i take u as my professor . Thanks alot

Subbed!

What a explanation

May i know how you make your animation using which softwares. I reaaly liked the demonstration and willing to learn for my presentaion in my physics class for my students

hey . can you talking about Superconducting Materials

Great Video. But what are L and M @7:50?

Parth special request from a listener before you hit 10,000k I would really like to know more/for you to cover one of the biggest scary taboo topics in Particle Physics: Aether. On my investigations aether is a concept which most of science is based on, Newtons Gravity/Lorentz-Einstein's Space-time "New Aether"/Maxwells Equations/Paul Dirac's Negative Sea or Hole Theory, all have required the notion that there must be something in the background instead of an absolute void. More recently in the 21st centaury you have the likes of John Bell preferring to use Neo-Lorentzian Relativity over Einsteinian, Leon Lederman and Robert Laughlin publishing books explaining that the Quantum Background is a relativistic aether brought back from Einstein's incorrect removal, where even in letters to Lorentz and his 1938 book both explain he was wrong to remove the concept of aether, he only should have removed the measurable velocity of it, and stated that General Relativity is identical to Neo-Lorentzian Aether and therefore Aether lives on as a concept. There seems to be a lot of miscommunication from science communicators and generic sources on the internet who literally point blank state "Aether was debunked in 1887 with the Michelson-Morley experiment" but reading the original paper and the reactionary fact that Lorentz designed Length Contraction and Time Dilation to avoid removing it completely just because it was undetectable, this seems like a fabrication and MMX only removed a detectable absolute framed aether, not Lorentz' Relativistic Aether. What are your thoughts/knowledge on the topic? Here are some of the cites I mentioned, although every time I ask people of even PhD level, they stutter and I get accused of cherrypicking, so there definitely is ambiguity and lack of knowledge. Yours "lacking-input-and-need-yours", Gleem haha ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- “The aether: Invented by Isaac Newton, reinvented by James Clerk Maxwell. This is the stuff that fills up the empty space of the universe. Discredited and discarded by Einstein, the aether is now making a Nixonian comeback. It’s really the vacuum, but burdened by theoretical, ghostly particles.” Leon Lederman - God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? - 2006 books.google.co.uk/books?id=-v84Bp-LNNIC&pg=PP15&dq=leon+lederman+%22ghostly+particles%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwivuN-kvcHsAhVMShUIHZbDDgQQuwUwAnoECAQQCA#v=onepage&q&f=false ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "....Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo” Robert B. Laughlin - A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down - 2005 archive.org/details/differentunivers00laug/page/120/mode/2up ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- “We can now see that we may very well have an aether, subject to quantum mechanics and conformable to relativity, provided we are willing to consider a perfect vacuum as an idealized state, not attainable in practice. From the experimental point of view there does not seem to be any objection to this. We must make some profound alterations to the theoretical idea of the vacuum. . . . Thus, with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether” Paul Dirac “Is there an aether?” 1951 Nature vol. 168, pp. 906-907. www.nature.com/articles/168906a0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- “The approach of Einstein differs from that of Lorentz in two major ways. There is a difference of philosophy, and a difference of style. The difference of philosophy is this. Since it is experimentally impossible to say which of two uniformly moving systems is really at rest, Einstein declares the notions 'really resting' and 'really moving' as meaningless. For him only the relative motion of two or more uniformly moving objects is real. Lorentz, on the other hand, preferred the view that there is indeed a state of real rest, defined by the `aether', even though the laws of physics conspire to prevent us identifying it experimentally. The facts of physics do not oblige us to accept one philosophy rather than the other.” John S. Bell - Speakable and unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics - 1988. www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Speakable_and_Unspeakable_in_Quantum_Mec/FGnnHxh2YtQC ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I cannot but regard the ether, which can be the seat of an electromagnetic field with its energy and its vibrations, as endowed with a certain degree of substantiality, however different it may be from all ordinary matter." Hendrik Lorentz- The Theory of Electrons and Its Applications to the Phenomena of Light and Radiant Heat - 1916 www.jstor.org/stable/41133827 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Einstein also wrote in a 1919 letter to Lorentz: “It would have been more correct if I had limited myself, in my earlier publications, to emphasizing only the non-existence of an ether velocity, instead of arguing the total non-existence of the ether, for I can see that with the word ether we say nothing else than that space has to be viewed as a carrier of physical qualities.” Einstein stated in his 1938 book, The Evolution of Physics: “This word ether has changed its meaning many times in the development of science. … Its story, by no means finished, is continued by the relativity theory.” www.independent.com/2012/07/20/higgs-field-new-ether/

Hey parth, could you make a video on the quantum mechanics of a knuckleball? ⚾️

How about a video related to electrons coexisting in Cooper pairs?

Whut up my physics boys we are back at it again. Hows everything going for you?

are the shapes of atomic orbitals mathematically optimised based on some law, eg least charge repulsion?

can you please make a video on lorentz transformation

As follow-up, can you expand on the higher shells?

I am trying to think of something that is unique.(to explain indistinguibility) - it's like waves are spread upto entire universe. And we can't confirm two waves are exactly similar.

i have a quick question for you parth how can the fucntion be positve or negative during particle exchange? does it have to do with some maths? or Just the way they work?

Hey sir , I have a question. Why is it that the fermions can't occupy the same quantum states as directed by the Pauli exclusion principle ? Is there some reason behind it ? And when do we represent the superposition of the fermions it's negative in between the two states and while in bosons it is plus between the two states ? Why is it so ?

could you explain the neutron or electron degeneracy in M dwarf star

What are those red circles of light on your glasses. I have seen them in almost all the videos now.😂

This makes a lot of sense. But what I have never seen is why is is that fermions obey this "law" of Pauli's Exclusion Principle, yet Bosons (e.g., photons) can simply "ignore" this law, say, in a laser where all photons are at the same state. What is the property of fermions that make them "have to" follow Pauli?

How do we know that hydrogen have 1 electron and how do we know n shell has only 2 electron Can u please explain these kind of basic questions

Symmetric vs antisymmetric entirely depends on whether spin is integer or half integer.

9:30 May be the life we know about wouldn't exist but sure another sort of like would exist. Let's rephrase it if any single item in the a system changes all other items need to change also for a system to exist may be in a different form

Hey, could you provide a simple explanation of Maxwell’s equations please! nice video

3:03 how we know the first eqn. Is for bosons and second is for fermions??

Hey, Parth, I've been wondering, your accent sounds very British but you use V for potential instead of U which I always thought was an American custom. Where are you from?

Bhaiya the exceptional electronic configuration of chromium is explained by the stability in half or fully filled orbitals due to law of symmetry and exchange energy can you explain both in detail 'coz law of symmetry seemed useless to me the textbook says we know that symmetry leads to stability i think this is pure junk i mean why should symmetry lead to symmetry???

Isn't wave function a complex number so if their modulus is same so why cant one be i times (√-1) the other one or something. Why necessary negative or positive?

Hey Sir I have a question !! Do light Can bend space-time ?? (as it is produces electromagnetic field, Moreover it has energy and momentum ! And Can cause stress ! ) So Can light Bend space-time too ?? I didn't get the precised Answer anywhere !! Plz help ! @Parth G

Parth , do you have an e-mail I can reach out to . Also what software do you use for the graphical representation in the video . Thanks Firoz

I wish You would cover L and ml quantum nubers you way dıd n and ms . ıs it possible you to do so ? it would be great if you do . Sincerely

Why does the n=1 only allow fermions of differing m_s but not of the other quantum numbers, while the other n=* allow other quantum numbers to be different?

Can we force 2 similar electrons into the same energy level. What will happen in that case?

How can I distinguish between different bosons?

Hey, could you explain relativistic mass! it's very confusing!

I still find quantum physics complex and complicated. I have done all I could but it is still difficult to grasp. Maybe because of the teaching or the basic understanding of the wavefunction

okay but how come the other quantum qualities dont apply to the n=1 shell. i.e. more than two because you can have differences in the other values, like in the other shells?

What is the property that allows electrons to be in the (otherwise) same state as long as they are in different atoms? I've read that it's the "position" which differs, but wouldn't electrons on opposite sides of a large shell also have different positions? Maybe I just need to read the explanations more carefully, but so far it isn't yet clear to me.

I mean isn't this a long (and more specific) way of saying that electrons take up space, which doesn't strictly need a QM description because there are EM fields?

Namaskar dada.. G for Ghosh naki?

💚

Why can't Psi(a,b)=i*Psi(b,a) for example? The square modulus is still the same

Quantum chemistry!

I'm confused: electrons are indistinguishable but aren't allowed to have the same quantum state? Pls help me understand

Hodge conjecture tell please