Quantum Mechanics in 5 Minutes (Now with Added Ducks)

Quantum Mechanics in 5 Minutes (Now with Added Ducks)

(Visited 6 times, 1 visits today)

About The Author

You might be interested in

Comment (38)

  1. When “INFOTAINING” I feel there’s a very thin line between a quick joke & some hardy-har bullshit that runs on too long.

    I guess funny is relative but I’d reason that the same reason many find John Oliver unwatchable was because “when to reel it in” was a mystery to them.

  2. Just to add on to what he’s saying, an “observation” isn’t just someone looking at a quantum system, but literally any coupling with another system is an “observation.” No need for a human consciousness to see anything.

  3. So, if you’re british– this just sounds like a regular average dude talking?

    Because as an American, his accent is like 65% the pleasure in viewing this video.

  4. Can anyone explain why this video would be down voted?

    My app displays what percentage of people have liked it, and it’s only 70% right now. Did he say something controversial?

  5. For people still confused about entanglement, check out Veritasium’s video about it:

    For a more layman’s explanation, think about if I have two cards, one is an Ace and one is a King. I shuffle the two face down, and give one to you, and one I send on a rocket to mars. When it gets there, you flip your card over and discover it’s an Ace. You know instantaneously no matter how far away the other card is, that it has to be a King. However, no information can be transferred using this method. Now this is actually wrong because in the quantum world, it can be proven that the cards don’t store if they’re Aces or Kings from the beginning, just that i has to be the opposite of the other. But the result is similar, you can’t transfer information like this.

    For a quantum algorithm, think about it like this. You have a maze and you want to know if it’s possible to reach the exit. With a classical computer, you have to run some algorithm to examine paths of the maze one by one, which can be slow if the maze is complicated. With a quantum computer, you build a scale model of the maze out of plastic, pour water in at the start, and see if the end gets wet. Here you “examine all possible solutions at once” because the water flows down all paths. You’re basically taking advantage of a quirk in the universe to solve a very specific problem, but this solution cannot be applied to every problem.

  6. what in the world? is this video made for 3 year olds? This guy knows as much as me on quantum mechanics, which is jack shit besides trigger words like quantum entanglement and the double slit diffraction test. This video is so unbelievably cringy. Please, if you watched this immediately erase it from your head and watch this cool introductory video that doesn’t patronize and actually gives better explanations on what this clown was trying to do.


  7. I’m not sure if I’m just really bad at this quantum mechanics thing, but I found all the duck stuff and jokes to confuse me even more… By the time I sifted out the humour from the factual bits, the guy was already two points ahead. Am I the only one?

  8. So if a particle is in all positions when it is not being observed, if I had a box filled with particles that could create an observer, would it automatically create the observer and collapse the wave function, since the configuration where the observer exists is in the set of all configurations of the particles?

  9. The thing about Quantum Mechanics is that it’s pretty much impossible to break down to a layman level. Undergraduates spend 3 years learning the mathematics and prerequisites to finally crack open Griffiths “Intro to Quantum Mechanics,” only to end up more confused than ever before.

    Here’s a good tip: If you think you’re learning Quantum Mechanics, check to see if the book you’re reading has any mathematics in it. If it doesn’t, then you’re not learning Quantum Mechanics. QM studies are 99.9% mathematics.

    [Here’s the first page of the homework solutions to the second chapter of that textbook I mentioned in the above paragraph. THIS is Quantum Mechanics.](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oVxdUxoqC-k/UH7NMpZKSvI/AAAAAAAAG9w/ohkOSKt1I3Y/s1600/griffiths+d.+j.,+introduction+to+quantum+mechanics+solutions+(2nd+ed-014+-+2.1.jpg)

  10. I love the concept of collapsing the wave function. It’s so frustrating and beautiful. It actually inspired me to write a short story about a guy who knows everything. A scientist tries to disprove his ability by asking how many photons are going through one slit in an otherwise unobserved double slit experiment, but when he runs it, there’s no interference pattern.

    I’d share it but I fear the story is shit. Sadly I’ve written several short stories and I think they’re all too shit to share.

  11. I really don’t understand why quantum communication via entangled pairs can’t be a thing.

    Like, think of it like this: We run an experiment where we set up and watch two entangled particles, and we change one and study the other. A is an input, B is the output. We use A to send data to B, when they’re close enough together. Then we move the experiments further apart, checking each time to assure it’s accurate. Once we get them far enough apart, couldn’t we confirm that they work, regardless of distance?

    I don’t get what’s stopping it from working. Yes at some point, checking the results to assure that there’s transmission, is much much longer than actually sending it in the first place, but if we can build a system reliable enough, why would we even need to check it afterward?


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *