Відео

for sure this video deserve a like and comment thanks sir

Your the top g

Dear Sir, pure state is used for a single quantum system and mixed state is used for an ensemble of the single quantum system?

Wow, wonderful video. I'm studying for a subnuclear physics exam and this explanation was perfect. Furthermore the video is very well done. Great job!

I have some questions about the tensor product: (1) At 3:50, why is the middle term 2*(j_1 ⋅ j_2) instead of 2*(j_1 ⊗ j_2)? (I confess I am a bit lost on which of the operators on that page are vectors, scalars, or tensors :/ ) (2) A more general question, is ⊗ commutative for states in Hilbert spaces, e.g. is |state 1〉 ⊗ |state 2〉 the same as |state 2〉 ⊗ |state 1〉?

if pressure is constant but density is not constant, would be the "V1 * v1^2" constant?

"Genius might be the ability to say a profound thing in a simple way."

1000000 times thank you for this amazing work ❤❤❤❤

tysm brother that table was driving me crazy until I found your video 🛐🛐🛐

I love you for this marry me

Nice vid, vid. Your accent and pronounciation of the word "Ansatz" sounded german, thus may i ask if you're german. I know the vid is old af

Actually hilarious paper and a good critique of some fields too 😂

Thankyou so much, one can know the extent of your knowledge simply by how you define things, im only starting with this and watched dozens of videos (literally) and none mentioned explicitly that points can exist inside the Block Sphere (ie not on surface)

my dude it's almost gross how much better your video explains this then a lecture. 10/10 great job

Thanks for your interesting video. Area under a curve is often equivalent to energy. Buckling of an otherwise flat field shows a very rapid growth of this area to a point. If my model applies, it may show how the universe’s energy naturally developed from the inherent behavior of fields. Your subscribers might want to see this 1:29 minutes video showing under the right conditions, the quantization of a field is easily produced. The ground state energy is induced via Euler’s contain column analysis. Containing the column must come in to play before over buckling, or the effect will not work. The sheet of elastic material “system”response in a quantized manor when force is applied in the perpendicular direction. Bonding at the points of highest probabilities and maximum duration( ie peeks and troughs) of the fields “sheet” produced a stable structure when the undulations are bonded to a flat sheet that is placed above and below the core material. Some say this model is no different than plucking guitar strings. You can not make structures with vibrating guitar strings or harmonic oscillators. ua-cam.com/video/wrBsqiE0vG4/v-deo.htmlsi=waT8lY2iX-wJdjO3 At this time in my research, I have been trying to describe the “U” shape formed that is produced before phase change. In the model, “U” shape waves are produced as the loading increases and just before the wave-like function shifts to the next higher energy level. Over-lapping all frequencies together using Fournier Transforms, can produce a “U” shape or square wave form. Wondering if Feynman Path Integrals for all possible wave functions could be applicable here too? If this model has merit, seeing the sawtooth load verse deflection graph produced could give some real insight in what happened during the quantum jumps between energy levels. The mechanical description and white paper that goes with the video can be found on my LinkedIn and UA-cam pages. You can reproduce my results using a sheet of Mylar* ( the clear plastic found in some school essay folders. Seeing it first hand is worth the effort!

Ive stared at my book for a solid 15 mins with no braincells left, and you explained it very clearly in a couple minutes (I didnt think Id find a specific vid touching this proof). Thanks, helped me to not get a mental breakdown at midnight, very much appreciated!

what if you asserted that a†|H⟩ yields back |H⟩?

is eta operator unitary?

Excellent video. Excellent clarity, fantastic visuals...just one gripe..you didnt prove the equality.

I have a question, why the spin can only be parallel to momentum if h>0 (or h<0), i mean the helicity is the projection of the spin vector to the momentum vector so there's a factor cosΘ, so i would expect for example for the electron who has spin 1/2, helicity values between 1/2 and -1/2 (or if is normalized between 1 and -1), in other words my question is why the particles can move only parallel (or antiparallel) to the spin?

these videos are generally really cool and straighforward, good summary to start studying the topic

Hey there. I had a question for you. Is it possible for Mesons to form Baryons? I had a reaction in mind that looked something like this: s- is an antistrange quark d is a down quark u- is an antiup quark kaon and pion goes to s-d and u-d goes to s-u-dd goes to uu- dd goes to energy dd goes to u dd goes to neutron Given that antistrange quarks can decay into up quarks and energy can spontaneously generate many various types of subatomic particles. If the above is true; then we have a little story about how a pair of mesons can form a baryon. Thoughts?

Thanks bro

This video is like super good! I am a researcher and I recently have some projects working with atoms (it's currently quite trendy in quantum physics, as the technology is growing fast) but I havent done physics with atoms since my master (so ~7 years), and this small video is a great way to summarise what I forgot !

Thank you so much! The 10 part video series that you taught on the Quantum Harmonic Oscillator has helped me understand such a great deal in a short amount of time. Your videos are a God send for my course. I truly appreciate your material.

Thank you.

Honestly, this channel is truly excellent, every video is clear and easy to understand

talk a little louderr

where exactly these three conditions are stated in Sakharov paper?

What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton.

Anyone came here coz they needed this for harmonic oscillator?

i have a question, if we cannot assume a uniform electric field, why do we get the exact same result as the one we get by using quantum mechanics? Is it because the classical approach only involves the uniform electric field while the quantum approach involves both uniform and non uniform electric fields (which is a better approach since we involve all the cases), but they turn out to give the same results, even so we say the first approach isn't very correct since we only consider uniform even if it gives the same result, so eventually we say both approaches give the same result but the quantum one is better since the logic behind is more rigorous, is my understanding correct, if not please fix me

This analysis is misleading. Existence is represented by addition; a + 0 = a, b + 0 = b Both elements exist in order for them to be multiplied. # = a + b #^2 = [a^2 + b^2] + [2ab] Interaction (entanglement entropy) is represented by 2ab Much more to this story (see below) There are no negative numbers: -c = a-b. b>a iff b - c = a, a > 0, a-a = 0, a+0 = a 2 of the elements (1,-1) simply mean there are two elements equal to each other (1-1) = 0, but does not establish their existence (1 + 1 = 2) The other two elements are both negative, where -1=-1 iff 1-1 = 0 Relativity The correct analysis is that space (x = vt) is not included in the equation to be solved for the "time dilation" equation. (ct')^2 = (ct)^2 + (vt')^2 (solve it for t' for yourselve(s) to understand) and note that this equation cannot be generated from the "space" equation for length in first order (ct') = (ct) + (vt') (draw it on a piece of paper). Hint: If space doesn't exist, the twins don't go anywhere; one of them (the imaginary one) just gets fat in his/her imagination (t'). Which is why Hawking hints that time must be imaginary, but never says why. "Yesterday upon the stair I saw a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today Oh, how I with he'd go away" - Ogden Nash See my post at "From MM Experiment to STR" at physicsdiscussionforum "dot" org That is, Fermat's Last Theorem is valid for the case n=2 for all positive real numbers c^2 <> a^2 + b^2 since in second order (I repeat, sigh. ad infinitum, ad nauseam) c= a + b c^2 = [a^2 + b^2] + [2ab] (Binomial Expansion, proved by Newton) <> [a^2 + b^2] (why) figure it out and you will be enlightened....😎 Tok2burn!! In order for the multiplication operator to exist, both its elements must exist. Russell's Paradox: 1^2 <> 1 # = 2 = 1+1 (first order) Then #^2 = (1 + 1)^2 = [1^2 + 1^2] + [2(1)(1)] = 4(1^2) (second order - via Binomial Expansion) where the first term is existence and the second is interaction (multiiplication, entanglement, entropy) Note that existence and interaction are not 4D (1,1,1,1) which diagonal is 4 elements without multiplication. Every number is prime relative to its own base. n = n(n/n) = n(1_n) Goldbach's Theorem: every even number is the sum of two primes: n + n = 2n n is odd. Godel's characterization of wff's in his meta-language only uses odd numbers (products of primes). Therefore, the sums of odd numbers (even numbers) or products of sums (a+b)^2 cannot be represented by hhis wff's. So it is just Goedel's meta-language that is incomplete, not positive real numbers. Together with Fermat's Last Theorem (applied to multinomials of arbitray powers), the arithmetic system is complete and consistent for positive real numbers. There are no negative numbers: -c = a - b, b > a b - c = a, a + 0 = a, a - a = 0.. If there are no negative numbers, there are no square roots of negative numbers. Proof of Fermat's Theorem for Village Idiots (n>2) c = a + b c^n = a^n + b^n +f(a,b,n) (Binomial Expansion) c^n = a^n + b^n iff f(a,b,n) = 0 f(a,b,n)<>0 c^n <> a^n + b^n QED Also valid for n = 2 c^2 = [a^2 + b^2] + [2ab]] 2ab < >0 c^2 <> a^2 + b^2 QED (Pythagoras was wrong; use your imagination) Check out my pdfs in physicsdiscussionforum "dot" org.

EVERYTHING HE JUST SAID IN THIS VIDEO WAS BEYOND HUMAN COMPREHENSION, or, he's drawing a bunch of squiggly lined, hieroglyphic-type symbols, & using words so big, that he doesn't really even understand!!! Either way, my head hurts now & I need to smoke a joint & drink an ice-cold Modelo!!!

I know this is really late, but is the work around a closed loop by a force being 0 necessary or sufficient for a force to be a conservative? If I show a force does zero work along some arbitrary closed loop, does that make my force conservative everywhere?

Cool outro

what about integrals of higher powers of grassman numbers (2,3,4,... etc) would their integral be zero as well?

Hi you might be able to help me out with something i cant figure out: If I apply the parallel axis theorem to a (non-spinning) body of mass m in uniform circular motion around a point a distance r away, then I get the angular momentum of the body about the point is (I + mr^2) omega where I is the body's moment of inertia around its COM and omega is the body's angular velocity around the point. However if we compute the angular momentum by just getting the orbital angular momentum about the point (where the body isn't spinning around its COM), we get r × mv = (mr^2 omega) which is clearly different to what we got above. Can you point out where I might be making a mistake here. Your help is greatly appreciated. Thanks.

why t' axis is not perpendicular to x' axis?

One cannot go back in time due to the past made the present (ie there would be an energy surge if one tries to go back intime with today's energies that will be different in its structured system )ie radiation ??? But it would also leave a lower energy balance on the time one left ??think it through

I see in other lectures that s, t, and u has negative in it. For example s = -(p1+p2)^2, but in your video there's no negative, Im confused about this part.

Hello, great video!

اردو زبان میں

Lmao i done looked up a headace 😂

read HCV they have explained this topic very well😁

Why we are so much interested about g factor ? Why we aren't included it into gyromagnetic constant ?

sir what about for half harmonic oscillator? awesome video by the way!

thanks!

I don't understand why you mention representation theory for chirality but not helicity. Helicity also comes from the unitary (infinite dimensional) representation of the Lorentz group. It goes back to Wigner who used Mackey's induced representation method (something that quantum chemists use regularly, but only for discrete groups) to characterise all possible unitary representations of the Poincare group. Unitary, because it acts on the particle states and those need to preserve probabilities. Chirality comes from not unitary, but hermitian representation of the Lorentz group, because unlike the particle states, fields don't need to have unit length. The hermiticity condition comes from the action to be real.