Thank you for this nice video!

Note that the Born rule is not an integral part of the quantum wave-function. It is a transform used to convert the eigenvalues generated by the quantum wave-function in configuration space into probability densities in 3D physical space. It is this projection from configuration space into physical space that is referred to as the "collapse of the wave-function" in the Copenhagen Interpretation. This transformation does not affect the wave-function itself, which continues to evolve according to the Schrodinger equation in configuration space. It is instead triggered by an act of measurement initiated in 3D physical space. The problem with this interpretation is that for any such quantum trigger to originate in 3D physical space, it must propagate from its point of origin relativistically, i.e. at the speed of light. This is in contradiction to Bell's Theorem, which recent Nobel Prize-winning experiments have confirmed to show that measurements of distantly-entangled particles are not subject to the relativistic limitations of 3D physical space.

KZfaq teachers are always better than our local teachers idk why but that’s too messy 😭🙌

Please Send Naphthalene SALCs and MOs

Please Send Naphthalene SALCs and MOs

The early statement "means that the particle is not moving" on the first screen is wrong physics. The concept is that the particle is not accelerating (but it can have constant velocity). Yet, that also will mislead students without context. As (x) progresses, then the angle changes, so the better statement is better and precise as "the particle is not accelerating (relative to the cylindrical (See Bose 1927) frame-of-reference) which MIGHT still be an azimuth dimension for the bounce (perpendicular to the surface) of the first Schrodinger Equation solution, which is a surface arc-distance path in the azimuth dimension so that it might (well, does) have a non-changing surface velocity along that CIRCULAR path. That is one of the key findings (see Bush's great work at MIT). See my Deterministic Physical Model Underlying Quantum Equations book coming out in September 2024. The physics for a sin((PI*x)/L) is that surface, circular progression. That is deterministic (yes), but please get the causation and physics correctly.

It's a total joke. You must first sign a legal contract that denied the existence of normal physics. Then they create their own magical words that nobody ever heard before, like eigenvalue. It's very simple. Modern test equipment has a 100% error factor. So what they do is hide normal physics inside the error factor and call it eigenvalue. It's just a scam. Collapse? Since when is the exponential function called the collapse function? Fraudsters.

I got the first by algebra but the other questions made me wonder how I am using my brain to a minimum...Kinda unthinking

Well presented with excellent notes.

7:18 Bertlmann and Zeilinger

6:21 Daniel Kleppner and Roman Jackiw, One hundred years of quantum physics, 2000, doi: 10.1126/science.289.5481.89

2:26 Travis Norsen

Re the Christoffel symbols related to a curvilinear csys, the superscript on Gamma stands for the components of the displacement vector, whose displacement is a comparison of the original vector (prior to transport) to the vector's new position (after transport). Are these components wrt the A) curvilinear csys or B) wrt to an orthographic csys? I ask because its an easy task to find the components of a vector on an orthographic csys since there are many tick marks. But on most graphic representations of curvilinear csyss, it's just four curves (not broken down into smaller units such that one could measure the change in the displacement vect wrt to said curvilinear csys. To me, that means that the breakdown of a displacement vector must be graphically calculated using an orthograhic cys superimposede under the curvilinear one. Are these components wrt the A) curvilinear csys or B) wrt to an orthographic csys?

Sehr gut

Sehr gut

Continuing my journey into the quantum jungle and deeply grateful for having you as my guide.

Not clear diagram, writing and notion

Sehr gut

As the only commenter, you should be very proud of your work. I really appreciate having access to this knowledge with such a good teacher. I am doing important work in philosophy that requires a robust understanding of natural laws, their subsequent mathematical mechanisms and nomenclature. I am very gifted intellectually in some areas, while deficient in others. The formal nomenclature of these maths has always been a deficiency. In university I passed all my engineering math, but never understood the concepts in a robust manner. For years I have been looking for a teacher to show the diction and syntax of this language in a way that makes sense to me. Thank you so much for providing this resource. I look forward to studying these videos for the foreseeable future.

When you do the outer product of two vectors called V and W, then as far as the tents goes, you rename them to i and j… Why would it not be preferable to leave it V and W. To me that’s rather like calling your best friend Bob a different name when you’re fishing with him then when you’re golfing with him and a different name when you are having dinner with him, it makes you track a lot of different descriptors. Why not keep it all the same

2:20 e2e2 should be 1/16 (not 1/8)

Note how Goldstein's overview of Bohmian Mechanics @28:03 is often misinterpreted to imply that the movement of particles is deterministic: "This deterministic theory of particles in motion account for all the phenomena of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics..." Goldstein is here pointing out that it is the theory itself that is deterministic, not that the guided movement of particles is deterministic. What is deterministically predicted by the BM Guiding Equation is the emergence of Born's Rule, the conjugate-squared probability density which predicts the likelihood of finding the particle in any particular region of space. Thus the particle's observed movement remains probabilistic (i.e. consistent with quantum mechanics) rather than deterministic.

I can't praise you enough. This video and your teaching method is so helpful for beginning and reviewing these concepts within a robust conceptual schema. I am looking forward to studying more of your videos over the foreseeable future.

It seems to me that you also made a mistake in defining the covariant derivative of a vector at 1:47. The first term is also a summation at index i.

At minute 20:43 the diagram on the right showing the changes in the basis vectors… In order to do anything, we need to know the components of the basis vectors such that we can obtain the metric tensor, such that we can obtain the Christoffel symbols, but on the graph, I see no way of obtaining these values from this weird grid. Am I missing something? Thank you, OK

love love love this stuff.

Thanks for taking the time for this video. 6:38 (1 dimensional) vector potential CAN be quantified but it requires access to time from past to present and future to present (i.e. at least 2 linear directions) and if time is equal in all directions, which it is NOT (i.e. no dimensional anchors or dimensional buoys nearby...) one can ballpark the potential by sliding the single time value across xyz placeholders with the known value relative to the rest of the equation variables, but don't take that to the bank for NIST calibrations lol. only recently are we developing the capability to start visualizing time in more than one linear measured value (i.e. it past to future and future to past). It is going to be some more years before time crystals and multidimensional gravity influences can be taken into account for adjacent spacetime and electrical/magnetic field phenomena calculations, to reverse engineer minute stuff like vector potentials and understand how to read and detect the metaphorical holes before the electrons arrive at those positions... but I have faith that those few of us who know what we are looking for will find it with the correct hard work and hand of Provenance to guide. "Ask and ye shall recieve. Knock and it shall be opened unto you." Something to liken it to would be on a macro level: freezing praesiodymium or niobium and watching it levitate. How high will it levitate? well that depends on environmental factors around it and temperature and core purity. Or calculating the exact paths of a air-ground lightning strike and then actually MANIPULATING it to be directed into an HV storage capacitor other than planetary water. It might seem impossible but with hard enough work it can be done. _At a subatomic level _*_even playing music in a room_*_ can impact how the particles flow in this and ajacent dimensions._ Farnsworth knew this general idea when he and George guys did the magnetic choke for the first electronic television tubes to stabilize the path. This would later be used extensively in particle accelerators and in theoretical optics as containment structures... and for the last 60 years they have been attempting to figure out how Philo did it before when he had the Mark III Fusor working. It took 60 years to reach fusion ignition again. Critics say absolute zero is not possible. It absolutely is, and Neil Degrass Tyson is incorrect. I respect the man as a scholar and professional, but he is incorrect on his video. Understanding the Aharonov-Bohm effect will be helpful in knowing and expressing how light will travel after it 'defrosts' from the stasis of absolute zero conditions, as well as programming the isolation fields of shield generators and containment fields of non-fixed-output power fusion engines.

@thevegg3275 1 hour ago (edited) At minute 9:47 you say that the change in the r basis vector with respect to the change and theta is 1 over r. To me that says that the r basis vector must be shrinking but I see no visual evidence in your description where I see r shrinking. I do, on the other hand, see the theta shrinking, but I never see an r shrinking. Now, if you are arguing that the change in the r basis, vector has two answers, one for the r basis vector direction, and one for the theta basis vector direction then that should hold as well for all the others. For instance, the change in the r basis vector with a change in the r component should be zero in the R direction and some other value else in the theta direction, but you never mentioned more than just that the change in the r basis vector with a change in the r component should be zero in the r direction. What is the change in the r basis vector with a change in the r component in the theta direction? Perhaps a more complete story would look like this. (?=what is left out of your description) ------------------------------ the change in the r basis vector with a change in the r component in the r direction =0 the change in the r basis vector with a change in the r component in the theta direction=? (you never said what direction) the change in the r basis vector with a change in the theta component in the r direction =? the change in the r basis vector with a change in the theta component in the theta direction =1/r the change in the theta basis vector with a change in the r component in the r direction =? the change in the theta basis vector with a change in the r component in the theta direction =1/r the change in the theta basis vector with a change in the theta component in the r direction =-r the change in the theta basis vector with a change in the theta component in the theta direction =?

Awesome video. I like to think of the metric as simply encoding the law of cosines, in a double array

Evidence that Pilot Wave theory is the best interpretation of quantum mechanics. The speed of light is not a constant as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton. Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles. *KZfaq presentation of above arguments: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qcuAl61o27m1poU.html *More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 *Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1 Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997

The copenhagen is the oxford method of pi which is a noncom of an answer like a solid turn to liquid at a volume if copenhagen

Hi The Cynical Philosopher. Thanks for spending time to put together this Organic Chemistry lesson. Will finish this series. Take care!!!

There is a translation of Grete Hermann's paper in Crull, Bacciagaluppi 2016 Grete Hermann: Between Physics and Philosophy

So are there or there not hidden variables?

This is excellent. I didnt realize that the experimental evidence was like a double slit. With the 2 paths traversing equal/opposite vector potentials A, does that also make it like an interferometer? Regarding the Forces explanation, i think your phase shift (from potential A, Wb/m) makes more sense when you consider the units in Schrod. Eqn term. (q/hbar, radians/Webber). I've seen that q/hbar*A term in Likharev's online book (Essential Graduate Physics, sect 6.4-6.5). It is discussed in the context of quantized flux in superconducting loops, where phase MUST be an integer multiple of 2*pi. Current in the loop generates flux A Wb/m and picks up A*q/hbar radians/m. The quantized flux just happens to be whatever value causes 2*pi phase shift. Sorry for going on at length. Been working at this math for awhile and some things are starting to click into place finally. Math is beautiful like that. Suddenly you can make leaps and predict things that are known to be factual/experimental- cool feeling.

Hello, this video has been so helpful. I am working on a project that writes data to a .rtf (word pad format) file, I am able to write text to the .rtf file but I am facing challenges with writing (appending) images to the same file. Any hints on the same matter are welcome, thank you in advance.

HAHAHAH ur classes are enjoyable and fun

Thank you very much for this comprehensive explanation. ❤

Everything after a right-hand rule stops me, but somehow you all keep going. After a right-hand rule, you leave reality and cause behind. A cross product turns numbers perpendicular FOR NO REASON, so you skip KEY physics using it. Most professionals just ignore me, but some will scoff and say how rigorous and exact it is, even though they don't see the huge gap in understanding. Even worse, they will derive "cause" from the math AFTER the gap. Angular momentum does not "cause" the gyroscopic effect. That came from the math AFTER the right-hand rule. That's goofy. I have a video that illustrates the actual cause, and it's linear acceleration, NOT "angular" momentum. Most rote memory dependent people cannot see it, so peer review has made it my 20 year secret. Further, "The wheels on the bus go round and round." This song describes everything you see a bus do exactly like math does, but it is not an understanding of a bus. Wheels going round are coincidental, not causal. The variables in gravity math are coincidental, not causal. Gravity is clue #1 contaminated by math analogies such that we will NEVER really understand it. Accurately describing what you see it do is not an understanding! Modern science is more like a bandwagon on Facebook. Everyone is just doing what they were taught to do. If you question ANYTHING, it tends to fall apart, and then others ignore you. This is true top to bottom. Light-speed-constant-to-the-observer is a goofy declaration, not an observation. After pure faith, It is only true on paper after you "transform" your numbers, but a Doppler effect happens BEFORE you "transform" your numbers. That cannot be good. This says that there is a NON-transformed reality underneath left behind ignored by everyone. It does not disappear when you "transform" your numbers, and it works just fine. A transformation is based on a number between 0 and 1. It's not smarter than that. The fact that it works just creates fools.

The real-valued description of Configuration Space you present @6:42 is the definition used in classical mechanics. But as I'm sure you're aware, the quantum wave-function is complex-valued and the Configuration Space it is defined on is likewise complex. The use of complex numbers to represent the probability amplitudes of wave-function components is significant because it is their complex interactions that produce the interference patterns observed in Double Slit experiments. In my view, that is sufficient evidence to conclude that ontologically speaking, the quantum wave-function, along with the Configuration Space on which it is defined, must exist in some operational sense. Note how Bell characterized this "probability wave" as "real" and "objective" in quotes, rather than PHYSICALLY real and objective. I think that distinction is crucial. @17:44 "A particle in Configuration Space takes up a single location in that Configuration Space." This is a bit misleading, as physical particles manifest in relativistic space-time, not in Configuration Space where the quantum wave-function is defined. As Travis Norsen points out, it is not just the wave-function representation of a single particle that occupies a single location in Configuration Space, it is the configuration of the entire ensemble of the system under observation that occupies that is represented in Configuration Space. As more particles are added to the system under observation, it is the number of dimensions that comprise that Configuration Space that increases.

I am confused how the change in the basis factor are with respect to changes and feta equals one over our feta when you change the length of our does not change

Hi. Your lecture has helped me gain better understanding of protein structure. Thank you!!!

John Bell's observations on Bohmian Mechanics are some of the most incisive: "That the guiding wave, in the general case, propagates not in ordinary three-space but in a multidimensional-Configuration Space is the origin of the notorious “nonlocality” of quantum mechanics. It is a merit of the de Broglie-Bohm version to bring this out so explicitly that it cannot be ignored." What Bell was referring to is the fundamental nature of the quantum wave-function (and the pilot waves it generates): It is defined not in relativistic space-time but in complex-valued, multi-dimensional Configuration Space. Thus pilot waves do not propagate across physical space, they evolve deterministically in accord with the Schrodinger Equation in Configuration Space. In Bohmian Mechanics, the manner in which pilot waves guide physical particles is described by the Quantum Equilibrium hypothesis, which reproduces the probabilistic predictions of Born's Rule. The reason physical particles do not affect the pilot waves that guide them is because there is no quantum mechanism comparable to Born's Rule that would project that influence from physical space back into Configuration Space. Conceptually, that makes Configuration Space an underlying non-physical realm that exerts a probabilistic influence on quantum particle trajectories in physical space. The interference patterns observed in Double Slit experiments provide physical evidence that such an underlying quantum mechanism does indeed manifest on some operational level. As for "empty waves", these are produced by the deterministic evolution of the superpositions that comprise the quantum wave-function. In MWI, they are interpreted as branching off into an unlimited multiplicity of mutually non-interacting "worlds". In Bohmian Mechanics, since each particle manifests as a single instance in a unified physical universe, it is guided by superposed pilot waves along a trajectory probabilistically predicted by Born's Rule. The "empty" pilot waves simply decohere as their probability density diminishes. They don't "go anywhere" because they manifest only in Configuration Space, rather than propagating through physical space. Once you recognize the quantum wave-function is defined on an underlying, non-local Configuration Space distinct from relativistic physical space-time, the contradictions between Quantum Mechanics and Relativity no longer require resolution. As you point out, Bohmian Mechanics is deterministic because the quantum wave-function is inherently deterministic. Physical space-time is non-deterministic because the projection of quantum superpositions from Configuration Space into observable particle trajectories is inherently probabilistic. Ontologically, it doesn't really matter whether the quantum wave-function and Configuration Space actually exist or not. As far as human beings are concerned, the entire quantum realm might be nothing more than a deterministic simulation, while the universe we inhabit remains just as relativistically inscrutable as ever.

Thank you! 🙏🏻the video is extremely helpful I wish the channel grows more popular cause it’s so underratede

Is there any relation with Baudrillard's simulation?

*_"Quantum mechanics is a single user theory, and any coincidence among states assigned by different users is just that-- coincidence."_* Everyone thinking: "leading w/that would have saved me some time." ;O)-

It is interesting to learn that Neutrophil has dependency on vitamin C. Will dig into more details. Thanks for your presentation.

Thank you for this video, really informative

I believe covid was a rush and not study

Bohmian mechanics is simply a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. Nothing to see here.