I've had my questions about this experiment by Derek for quite some time. Mainly: Why isn't this the default demonstration everyone uses to explain it?Video for reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8FTr2qMutAEvery other resource that's willing to get somewhat comprehensive on the subject will give the Fourier transform explanation along the lines of "the window you set for your integral is the range of the particle's position and as that increases, the frequency range becomes more narrow." That explanation makes it come off as some mathematical aberration. It explains how the issue isn't about getting a better measurement device, but rather a fundamental limitation of the math required to calculate these values. But Derek's demonstration seems to show it as a physical feature of nature.Why isn't this demonstrated on every popsci channel that attempts to explain this phenomenon? Why isn't it discussed in print? The only place I have ever seen this experiment done is on Derek's channel over a decade ago. And the only times I've ever seen it discussed were direct references to this video.It there a, non-schizo, more generally accepted alternative explanation for what's going on in the video? I feel like that makes the most sense to explain why more serious resources don't use it as exhibit A.
>>170022052 slits one photon.Usually the double slit experiment is used to reinforce particle/wave duality.I always find myself autistic screeching about planck's constant instead
>>17002205this thread is botted and in fact procured by the same bot that spams r/adv.
>>17002214This is a single slit. Watch the video. It's like 6 minutes and really only like the first 3 minutes matters here.This isn't about wave/particle duality or the observer effect. Those are distinct from HUP.>>17002215I'm not a bot. Just retarded.
>>17002216Stfu, bot
>>17002218Sinlence, skincel.
>>17002205>Why isn't this the default demonstration everyone uses to explain it?>it?Explain what? Explain what it is? The video a fine physical, visual EXAMPLE of the principle, sure. I could also just SAY something like, if you restrict a particle's range of position down to orders of hbar, it's range of momentum must increase inversely by the principle, and it's literally the same thing that derek says in his video. This is not at all an uncommon DESCRIPTION of the principle.>Every other resource that's willing to get somewhat comprehensive on the subject will give...>Why isn't this demonstrated...Well one is a very low level description and one is an undergrad level explanation. Choose your pick>That explanation makes it come off as some mathematical... fundamental limitation of the math...>Derek's demonstration... physical feature of natureAre you assuming that nature should allow for inconsistent rules to be followed? Cause literally no rational scientist thinks on these lines, and in fact they presume the opposite. If you don't have inconsistent rules, you literally get nonsense. Science is about prediction, and you need consistent rules to make accurate prediction. Math is just a list of assumptions on a structure then placed under logical continuation - you make an object, state some rules, and play the game to make new rules. If you get an inconsistent game, what the hell is the point? You can't really prove whether it's inconsistent or not, but modern math has anecdotally shown to be robust, in that nobody has yet to find any logical flaw. If a scientist want's consistent rules and accurate predictions, why question their use of math?
>>17002241Heisenberg got his uncertainty rule by a physical thought experiment and a little math. But his factor was off. You can't always trust a thought experiment to give the "correct" rules, especially when you can't say if this experiment is very "fundamental/foundational" to all explanations it carries above it. If we are to describe numbers, should we use an apples? 1 represents 1 apple, etc. But is a crab apple the same as a Fuji apple? Well 1 = 1 right? This is a shitty way to start. The number 1 is best CONSTRUCTED via some math object like a "set". Then we create rules and apply logic to this math object, and hope we get a consistent and INTERESTING game. If I wish to associate 1 apple to the math object 1, I can, but I'm not saying that 1 apple is the same as math object 1. But using the hopefully consistent rules applied to math 1, we hopefully can predict how 1 apple behaves with other apples. 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples, just as 1 + 1 = 2. A real world particle is mathematically described as a wave. Why? Because given the rules for these math objects, applying logical continuation to make new rules has experimentally given accurate predictions for the real world behavior of particles. And how does one properly derive the "correct" uncertainty rule? By starting out with waves [and operators], or anything math equivalent. If every other more comprehensive resource is talking about Fourier transforms on waves, how is that bad? Uncertainty comes from the waves and axioms of QM, and very related to Fourier transforms.As for why waves and these particular axioms? Who knows...
Why is he becoming more and more Indian over the years?
>>17002244Because the academia is. He's just trying to flow with the tide.
>>17002216Yeah but, twice the slits is twice the fun, dont tell me your school could only afford the one slit?
>>17002241The issue I have is why introductory explanations seldom emphasize that "yes, this is a real phenomenon with visible, macro-scale effects." I have no inherent problems with the DFT description, especially since it's more broadly generalizable. I'm just wondering why the more visceral, plain to see, demonstration isn't highlighted as often, especially in contexts where the viewers usually aren't expected to have that math background.>Are you assuming that nature should allow for inconsistent rules to be followed?No. But the DFT if most often used as a measurement tool in its own right. Most scientists aren't platonists and will draw a distinction between mathematical modeling of a phenomenon and the phenomenon itself. The DFT says "you can't extract information from one domain without losing information from the other." It is a massive logical leap to then say "that information physically isn't there." Experimentation is required to justify making that leap.
>>17002205to understand all the interesting stuff in QM you really need to understand the maththe heisenberg uncertainty principle is really just a special case of the general uncertainty principlein QM, the quantum state can be modeled as a vector.one is free to expand this vector in different bases/coordinate systems (just like how one can expand a geometric vector in different bases).measurements are modeled as (hermitian) linear operators that are applied to quantum states.each measurement operator has a set of eigenvectors, whose transformations are simply scaled versions of themselves.a measurement's eigenvectors form a basis that can be used to expand a quantum state.when a quantum state is measured, the standard interpretation is that it "collapses" to one of the measurement's eigenvectors.the (modulus squared) of the expansion coefficients gives the probability that the quantum state will collapse to the associated eigenvector/basis vector.the uncertainty principle arises because some measurements don't admit the same basis.mathematically, this occurs if the linear operators don't commute.practically, if you try to measure a quantum state with measurement A, it ends up as one of A's eigenvectorsif you then try to measure the quantum state with a different non-commuting measurement B, then since the eigenvectors of B aren't the same as A, the quantum state is necessarily a linear combination of more than one of B's eigenvectors and the result of the measurement is a throw of the dice.heisenberg's principle is the general uncertainty principle applied to the position and momentum operators (in free space). these don't commute, as the position eigenvectors are dirac delta distributions, and the momentum eigenvectors are sinusoids (which clearly don't look like each other).pic related handwaves the salient idea in geometric terms.
>>17002337Okay. So I'd be lying if I said I fully understood what you were saying here, but the core concept makes sense if I'm interpreting it correctly. Thanks. Quick question: when you say these values "don't commute to each other" do you mean this in the literal mathematical sense (I am vaguely aware of the basics of quaternions/hamiltonian operators and their non-commutative properties)?Am I anywhere near the right track there?
>>17002368>Quick questionlinear transformations don't, in general, commuteexample:you probably know that finite rotations can be represented with a matrix.consider 3d.let matrix R_x90 be the matrix that rotates 90 degrees around the x axislet matrix R_y90 be the matrix that rotates 90 degrees around the y axisR_x90 * R_y90 != R_y90 * R_x90
>>17002337Firstly, your pic has nothing to do with uncertainity, it describes measurement only. Secondly, it does it in a purely classical manner and entirely wrong. The vector is getting shorter, kek wtf. Is it the overall probability being reduced from 1, or is it the value of the observable getting smaller?Anyway, learn what is s-p-i-n. Read some stuff on the Stern-Gerlach experiment, Bell's inequalities, entanglement and indeterminism.
>>17002381a different example of linear operators that do commuteconsider 2dlet S_x2 be the matrix that scales x by a factor of 2let S_y2 be the matrix that scales y by a factor of 2in this case, S_x2 * S_y2 = S_y2 * S_x2in this example, the eigenvectors of both transformations are the x and y axes (remember, an eigenvector only gets scaled under transformation). mathematically this means that both transformations can be represented in a basis/coordinate system where both matrices are diagonal.in the rotation example, the eigenvectors are along the axes of rotation, and are different. however, each matrix only has a single eigenvector, so they don't admit an eigenbasis (a basis in 3d needs 3 vectors), so this isn't a good example to illustrate the point about the uncertainty principle i am trying to make. the note about measurements being hermitian linear operators guarantees such an eigen basis exists.
>>17002205Theoretical physics took over science since Einstein, everything you learn is fake and overcomplicated when not completely wrong, it satisfies the Academia pyramid scheme and stops inovation, favoring current status quo. It's why a regular guy with a brain can reach and share conclusions that should be basic components of a curriculum. Einstein literally created nothing, he is the biggest parasite I've known regarding taking credit. If your IQ is not high enough it might take a while for you to verify what I'm saying so better not even take the effort lol, but this is the answer. You can easily calculate that combined with the Flynn Effect we are living at a time when there are more geniuses than ever in history, yet foundational physics is stagnated. It won't last.
>>17002205The resolution that fits within an aperture is the diameter divided by the wavelength, per radian.So a 1mm wide aperture with 500nm light fits 2000cycles, or 4000 pixels per radian.
>>17002337(a+bi)/(c+di) = (b-ai)/(d-ci)
>>17002434praise kek
>>17002205These retards don't even ask if there's a mechanistic cause for why the inequality has to be true. They think the math they inferred from observation is itself transcendent magic that forces particles to behave in certain ways without any physical cause.
>>17002597>These retards don't even ask if there's a mechanistic cause for why the inequality has to be trueIsn't opining on mechanistic causes like, the whole reason "interpretations" of QM exist?
>>17002597That is what you think likely(transcendental magic), otherwise you could give the mechanistic cause of this being true for any fundamental particle.
>>17002638>what you thinkNo, it's clearly how physicists like Veritasium think.
>>17002643And how do you model it exactly?
>>17002205It IS a mathematical limitation that is manifested physically/thread
>>17002643>physicists like VeritasiumKEK
>>17002651I don't need to provide my own model in order to point out that modern physicists fail at basic logic.
>>17002205It is the result of the limits of the measuring device, not of nature. Even in a case when the particle/electrodynamic quantum mechanics is entirely fallacious, the quantum premise remain at a smaller layer below. It is a science of unattended amazon boxes on a porch.
>>17002205A much cleaner analogy for the Uncertainty Principle is a shutter speed comparison, then expanded towards a self-simulation theory of Reality.At slow shutter speed one sacrifices position for gathering momentum, at quick shutter the camera captures the position of the object, but tells nothing about momentum.The diffraction he shows can be explained by classical wave theory, a mechanistic approach, the Heisenberg Principle is not the cause of what he demonstrated.
