Is This What Quantum Mechanics Looks Like?

  • Added:  8 months ago
  • Silicone oil droplets provide a physical realization of pilot wave theories.
    Check out Smarter Every Day:
    Support Veritasium on Patreon:

    Huge thanks to:
    Dr. Stephane Perrard, Dr Matthieu Labousse, Pr Emmanuel Fort, Pr Yves Couder and their group site
    Prof. John Bush:
    Dr. Daniel Harris
    Prof. Stephen Bartlett
    Looking Glass Universe:
    Workgroup Bohemian Mechanics:
    Filmed by Raquel Nuno

    Thanks to Patreon supporters:
    Nathan Hansen, Bryan Baker, Donal Botkin, Tony Fadell, Saeed Alghamdi

    Thanks to Google Making and Science for helping me pursue my #sciencegoals. If you want to try this experiment, instructions are here:

    The standard theory of quantum mechanics leaves a bit to be desired. As Richard Feynman put it, "I think I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics." This is because observations of experiments have led us to a theory that contradicts common sense. The wave function contains all the information that is knowable about a particle, yet it can only be used to calculate probabilities of where a particle will likely turn up. It can't give us an actual account of where the particle went or where it will be at some later time.

    Some have suggested that this theory is incomplete. Maybe something is going on beneath the radar of standard quantum theory and somehow producing the appearance of randomness and uncertainty without actually being random or uncertain. Theories of this sort are called hidden variable theories because they propose entities that aren't observable. One such theory is pilot wave theory, first proposed by de Broglie, but later developed by Bohm. The idea here is that a particle oscillates, creating a wave. It then interacts with the wave and this complex interaction determines its motion.

    Experiments using silicone oil droplets on a vibrating bath provide a remarkable physical realization of pilot wave theories. They give us a physical picture of what the quantum world might look like if this is what's going on - and this theory is still deterministic. The particle is never in two places at once and there is no randomness.

    Edited by Robert Dahlem

    Sound design by A Shell in the Pit
  • Video CategoriesEducation
  • Runtime: 7:41
  • Tags for this video:  veritasium  silicone oil droplets  silicone oil  droplets  quantum mechanics  pilot wave  de broglie  quantum  theory  double slit  tunneling  wave  particle  duality  experiment  speaker  oil  droplet  bohmian mechanics  hidden variable theory  

Comments: 6 530

  • Vladferrum
    Vladferrum 17 hours ago

    This explanation is very logically strong. Electron is interfering not with himself, but with space where it flies. Also, it is not superpositioned in field of probabilities, but vibrates so fast, that our timing sensors cant detect it in expected position every time when it passes by. Besides it explains that when mass increases, wave effect decreases and completely disappears at some point. (very good visualised by those big droplets that are not bouncing). But, what about observer paradox? How could it affect the pilot waves, so the particles starts to move straight?

  • Captain Lang Sailing tutorials

    It seem that in all "sciences" an orthodoxy develops and new or different ideas are rejected not by reason but rationalizations. The desire to reject determinism at all cost is not rational. I understand a deterministic world is not as much fun as a random one but think of all the new discoveries we can make if we seek the truth no matter how painful and upsetting that might be.

  • Erik Dahlgren
    Erik Dahlgren 1 day ago

    Great video.

  • Thiago Patrick
    Thiago Patrick 2 days ago

    Pilot wave team. ahahaha

  • ochgottnochma
    ochgottnochma 2 days ago

    brb building quantum computer with a speaker and droplets

  • Tony Souter
    Tony Souter 3 days ago

    Bryan, that was a VERY professional presentation. Beautifully written and said.

  • miguel rodriguez
    miguel rodriguez 4 days ago

    this is exactly what milo wolf and Gabriel lafraniere sees as a electron made of waves

  • Anders Rosendal
    Anders Rosendal 4 days ago

    This has been my interpretation of the experiment from the first time I heard it. You get the same results so I never understood why all the magic was needed in the Copenhagen interpretation.

    Isn't the simplest explanation the most likely?

    ICE FALLS 4 days ago

    According to this electron can collapse??

  • Jamal Tjon-A-San
    Jamal Tjon-A-San 4 days ago

    Could the pilot wave theory be tested by changing the oscillation of the particle to see if the particle changes course? Or does interacting with the particle automatically changes it results?

  • Danny B
    Danny B 5 days ago

    Id more likely believe pilot wave theory than the copenhaagen interpretation. i also believe in determinism

  • jones1351
    jones1351 5 days ago

    I think this is a good 'visualization' tool for DeBroglie's thesis. But, for me, I 'see' only the wave traveling in space with the particle appearing after collapse. I keep to this because of Heisenberg's principle and 'Bell's inequality'. It's not a question of 'hidden variables'. It is true in-determinism. If it doesn't make sense, oh well.

  • ProfessorBorax
    ProfessorBorax 5 days ago

    It's not a question of which we're more comfortable with, it's a question of which one is true. They are different therories and I'm sure there is a way to test which one is right, on will be with advanced technology.

  • QED
    QED 6 days ago

    Alright people, calm down. Keep in mind this is only appealing because we can see it. Most physicists don't think this is the correct interpretation for a variety of legitimate reasons.

  • Walking Shows
    Walking Shows 6 days ago

    The universe needs to make only one visible atom - Hydrogen - the rest is history. Yo

  • Paul Pedersen
    Paul Pedersen 7 days ago

    IMO, what reality is, might be unknowable. What we attempt is not to unravel the mystery of ultimate reality, but rather to develop models that predict observable behavior. In that light, both of the two interpretations are acceptable to the extent that they are useful (which is also true of Newtonian mechanics).

    The question of what is actually "real" can be left for another day, if indeed that question is even meaningful.

  • Clarke Ensign Waldron

    After years of knowing of the results of the double-slit experiment, I finally have a basic understanding of a explanation. While it as true that this is not a completely accurate description, it does make sense. Thanks for the work.

  • epsilonxyzt epsilon
    epsilonxyzt epsilon 8 days ago

    I prefer Quantum Mechanics!

  • wisdom knight
    wisdom knight 8 days ago

    I choose pilot waves

  • Jake Harper
    Jake Harper 9 days ago

    I had a bubble like that in a 2lt bottle of coke when I released a small bit of pressure

  • Advaith Sahasranamam
    Advaith Sahasranamam 10 days ago

    I would say the Copenhagen interpretation since it talks about wavefunctions.

  • Dan Prisaca
    Dan Prisaca 10 days ago

    Great job with this video !

  • Rokaih
    Rokaih 10 days ago

    I was wondering if anyone had any tips for lighting in this experiment? I'm currently trying to track the walkers using Python coding, so lighting needs to be just right.

  • Joe Leonardo
    Joe Leonardo 11 days ago

    The pilot wave theory could explain why the particle moves in a random direction but it doesn't explain why particles don't produce an interference pattern when being observed.

  • Juan Pretorius
    Juan Pretorius 11 days ago

    The speaker at 5:08 looks a lot like 3:04, jus' sayin'

  • Taylor Artymus
    Taylor Artymus 11 days ago

    but what I wanna know is, can we get a massive speaker and make a massive droplet bounce around?

  • SmashAnarchy
    SmashAnarchy 11 days ago

    This is a much more intuitive explanation of Young's experiment. I have long felt that the original ideas of an aether or fabric of the universe that we just have not been able to detect is probably correct. This would go a long way towards explaining many other things, including gravitational waves, mass-less particles et al.

  • T21
    T21 12 days ago

    if one claim something is random its only because its not understood well enough.
    what we define as chaos is a form of complexity (process over time)

  • Ramon Torres
    Ramon Torres 12 days ago

    So does the idea of the electron behaving differently depending of whether it is being observed or not still hold true, or is that just not true?

  • Kristy Hamlin
    Kristy Hamlin 13 days ago

    Okay but can pilot wave theory explain delayed choice double slit or the "quantum eraser" experiment which demonstrated that even when which slit an electron went through was detected after the position measurement of it's entangled partner, an interference pattern was not observed, whereas when this information was afterward lost by not hitting a detector, an interference pattern was observed? It seems to me that unless pilot wave theory can explain these observer experiments, we are still forced to accept Copenhagen for the time being.

  • FPV 3D
    FPV 3D 13 days ago

    wow - you actually look just like Louis de Broglie dude... hmmmm...

  • Gema gemoide
    Gema gemoide 14 days ago

    Me encantan tus vídeos. Enhorabuena.

  • vikash achary
    vikash achary 16 days ago

    Mind blowing ...

  • Riccardo Palamidesse
    Riccardo Palamidesse 17 days ago

    what would happen if you put detectors (that use or absorb the waves to know where the droplet passed)behind the slits??
    would the droblets behave like particles and end up in just two spots??

  • Daniel Vieira
    Daniel Vieira 18 days ago

    I prefer the pilot wave explanation, the copenhagen interpretation looks too much like "we can't see, therefore it [the pilot wave] doesn't exist" to me. the pilot wave sounds a lot more plausible to me.

    there's one thing I missed in the video. the pilot wave for the bouncing oil droplet is the oscillating water surface. what would be the water surface of the free electron, for example? is there even an educated guess on the matter?

  • michange3141592
    michange3141592 18 days ago
    E.L.O already had it down right back in 1981 !!!

  • luke666808g
    luke666808g 18 days ago

    If the pilot wave is true, why does the wave disappear when you take a measurement?
    It sort of makes more sense as a property of the particle itself right?

  • davidvdbergen
    davidvdbergen 18 days ago

    This droplet (as the particle) riding the space-time fabric would explain how you can create electricity with magnetism, you bascally pull out the electron as you are doing now using a toothpick.
    And also why particles behave like waves.
    This would also explain heavy (or bigger) "particles" causing a bigger disturbance in the space-time fabric explaining gravity.

  • C0pe
    C0pe 19 days ago

    Love this video, because it is a sensible explanation.
    When people don't know something there'll be always one explanation: 'It's some mystical supernatural thing which is random or controlled by a higher intelligence.' It is a stupid explanation which you could use to explain anything always. Obviously something like shown in the video is a far more logical explanation.
    Scientists today are really silly. They say that they basically don't know what form or shape a photon is. Then they do experiments as if they know and explain the answers as if they know. It's like saying the speed of light is the maximum speed. This is claimed because they thought photons have no mass, thus no rest mass, thus when emitted it must travel at the maximum possible speed. Then when something travels faster they claim it must be bending 'spacetime'. Like really? And they still believe this although it's proven photons actually have mass?
    Science at this point is less logical than many religions. Religions are very logical actually, except for the claim there is an almighty being. Science would be as logic only if it claimed that we live in a simulation, then all these stupid claims can be justified. Yet, there is no reason to say it's magic apart from assumptions which are silly.

  • Leo Schouten
    Leo Schouten 20 days ago

    you've invented the warp drive !!

  • loonatic7
    loonatic7 21 day ago

    What was it that William of Ockham said back in the day?

  • Clayton Hinkle
    Clayton Hinkle 21 day ago

    I never bought Copenhagen and neither did Einstein, although he dismissed pilot wave as well. The electron is there, just because we can't measure it doesn't mean it didn't have a location before we measured it. I'm pilot wave all the way. Like Einstein was at least rumored to have said, was the moon not there until I looked at it?

  • António Henriques
    António Henriques 21 day ago

    So, with very simple words, let me see if I got it:
    -The wave expands in all directions and dictates the movement of the particle
    -The particle moves in one direction at a time, and that movement is dictated by its interaction with the very wave it creates;
    So, we say that in quantum mechanics "a particle can be in 2 places at once" because we measure those places based on the wave? Because the wave is in those 2 places and therefore can guide the particle to either of them?
    And now we reach the conclusion that the particle is never in more than one place at a time, rather that it has the possibility of being in either of those places as long as its wave covers that area;
    I have been digging into this subject for an absurdly SHORT time, so correct, elaborate and enlighten me about the physics in this please :D

  • Marco Barbieri
    Marco Barbieri 21 day ago

    I'm a big fan of the hidden variables theory (out of which the wavefunctions in QM are built up). What I like so much is that there is a mechanism that mimics the probability interpretation. How can an event based on irreducible chance take place? How does a particle "know" when it's going to decay, for example? You can, of course, say that the irreducible chances determine when a particle decays, but what does that mean? How does a particle "feel" when it's going to decay? Chance is a human made concept, involving our lack of knowledge, which is then applied to, say a dice, and in this picture if you roll a perfect dice, the chances are one sixth of each number on the dice in the limit of an infinite amount of rolls of the dice. Now how can you objectivize this human concept and apply it to the interpretation of QM, while hidden variables are much more objective and offer a neat explanation of the so-called inherently, irreducible chance interpretation of the Copenhagen interpretation? For the Brown-particle in a fluid, the movements are not inherently chance based. There is even an uncertainty relation developed for the Brown-particle. But we know that the erratic behavior of the Brown-particle is caused by the actions of enormous amounts of the molecules in the fluid, which can be compared to hidden variables.

  • Owez Khan's Science
    Owez Khan's Science 21 day ago

    Very good video

  • Wemdiculous
    Wemdiculous 22 days ago

    So could we build a quantum computer out of oil droplets?

  • Chang Andy
    Chang Andy 22 days ago

    Hi Veritasium, any more experiment set up info on the 2:48 clip? What are the parameters ? Much thanks!

  • Nipponcom Nipponcom
    Nipponcom Nipponcom 23 days ago


  • Dennis Liu
    Dennis Liu 23 days ago

    So if we can somehow manage to adjust the frequency of our Universe, we can make all particles to re-trace their previous positions? Awesome!

  • Wayne and Donita
    Wayne and Donita 24 days ago

    If I'm understanding this correctly, all the "quantum weirdness" that led me to abandon physics after the first year can actually be modeled by a classical, essentially Newtonian (assuming small velocities?), system???
    Can you create analogues of quantum computers with these oil droplets vibrating in water???

  • Lucas Sanctus
    Lucas Sanctus 24 days ago

    Please. Talk about the new NASA's engine "EMdrive".

  • Stephen Parallox
    Stephen Parallox 25 days ago +1

    I got to thinking watching this little experiment. Scientists have never fully rectified quantum mechanics and relativity, but after watching this, I have a thought. What if in the quantum world, the particles are bouncing/vibrating, but not on water but a space/time fabric. And as these particles bounce on the space time fabric, the interaction with space time is what brings about their random behaving, much like the water oil droplets. At one point, some of the droplets clumped up, and almost formed their own little divot in space time. Could it be that other forces such as electro static binds some of these, and this clump now loosely interacting with space/time create a bend in the fabric, which also might explain gravity. As shown in the experiment, as the particles pass thru the slits, but the waves interfere with each other. Could it be that the slits, could be interpreted as a dense mass body, interfering with the space/time fabric? Just food for thought, but I think it would explain a lot about the randomness, and the loose interactions between relativity and quantum mechanics. Do you think?

  • dumbcreaknuller
    dumbcreaknuller 25 days ago

    the secret to understand the universe is in hologram technology.

  • dumbcreaknuller
    dumbcreaknuller 25 days ago

    dubble slit means the wave is dividable to near infinity, but only construct patterns of particle like behavior when they divide and combine. the particle is a product of a wave that is reflected and interfering with itself. this is how holograms can be created.

  • Jonathan alis
    Jonathan alis 26 days ago

    What happens in a single slit?
    And a double slit, but you only direct the droplets to one of them?

  • GameLab Inc.
    GameLab Inc. 26 days ago

    Isn't there any way to sort of "observe" (i mean: "interact") with the droplet or standing waves at the moment the droplet passes through one of the slits? What I mean is, can you collaps it's "wavy" path back to a linear path, similar to what happens with electrons? I don't know enough about fluid dynamics and wave functions to predict the possibility of such an experiment.

  • Strategy
    Strategy 26 days ago

    Even with this, quantum physics continue to be a wave of uncontrollable madness

  • Sidney Chagas
    Sidney Chagas 26 days ago

    Adorei esse vídeo

  • lokp asddq
    lokp asddq 26 days ago

    это глупо т.к. учтены не все свойства воды.
    1. изображение за стаканом воды является зеркальным
    2. И опять забыли про пропорцианальность 1,1,2,3,4,5,4,3,2,1,1
    2.1 указанная пропорция (ряд фибоначи) указана для простых вложенных обектов к примеру таких как папки в каталоге.. с замечательной особенностью измерения глубины и с возможностью проверки и предсказания следующего элемента до того как событие наступило, что даёт возможность определить текущее положение элемента
    2.2 ну и 2я перспектива в том что такая лужа может быть подобием стека (по принципу первый зашёл - первый вышел) обобщить можно если принять во внимание что шар воды над лужой пытается измерить глубину, т.к. находиться в центре лужи...
    математически энергия кругов вокруг капли будет равна энергий волн лужи (x*1,y*2,z*3 ... это круги типа )
    2.2.1 смотри пункт 1.
    2.2.2 я спецально не спросил о пропорции самого измерителя.. всем пака..

  • Akshay Nanjangud
    Akshay Nanjangud 26 days ago

    Excellent video! Thanks a lot!

  • ajollynerd
    ajollynerd 26 days ago

    Not a physicist, but I've read a bit about QM. The oil drop double-slit experiment really only replicates what happens in the electron double-slit experiment when the detector is placed at the screen. If you place the detector before the screen, you end up with 2 landing areas. So, there's still a lot of weirdness going on.

    Or am I way off base?

  • Eric Albers
    Eric Albers 27 days ago

    occams razor says pilot wave theory is the least unlikely to be true.

  • Andre Schroder
    Andre Schroder 27 days ago

    No any reference to the fact that this has been discovered by Philippe Couder ?? all these fantastic videos that took years to be done ?? :(

  • RawDeal
    RawDeal 27 days ago

    They are not competing theories. In many ways, the Copenhagen interpretation is not a theory. A theory should say what it is about. For instance, the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory is about positions of particles. What is the Copenhagen theory about?

  • John Bracciano
    John Bracciano 27 days ago

    So how would one explain that the particles stop forming an interference pattern when it is known through which slit they went through with the pilot wave theory?

  • Chris Becke
    Chris Becke 27 days ago

    My problem with the copenhagen interpretation has always been that it appears to make
    interactions that are are ultimately seen by a human as special. There are many incidental "fields" that cover a double slit experimental apparatus, and the electrons / photons / whatever don't seem to care about all the other interactions they must surely have over the course of their macroscopic journey. Surely the mere act of having your path, ever so slightly, bent by gravity should cause the electrons wave function to collapse in the copenhagen interpretation?

  • RobertMStahl
    RobertMStahl 28 days ago

    history history history
    check out Randell L Mills
    huge huge huge
    in physics

  • David R
    David R 28 days ago

    I always preferred the pilot-wave model specifically because it is deterministic.
    Beautiful demonstration of de Broglie's idea.

  • Martín Funes
    Martín Funes 28 days ago

    You are a sexy intelligent young man. This was enlightening.

  • AMotoVlogger
    AMotoVlogger 28 days ago

    I stopped listening when I heard the liberal say which method you "prefer"
    don't liberalize Science bub

  • Francesco Di carlo
    Francesco Di carlo 28 days ago

    I will always believe that even quantum mechanics are deterministic no matter what.

  • Earl Fechter
    Earl Fechter 28 days ago

    Copenhagen theory is stupid

  • Uwera Tryb
    Uwera Tryb 28 days ago

    i just watched this because i love the big bang theory

  • Prathik Diwakar
    Prathik Diwakar 28 days ago

    The pilot wave theory seems too good to be true

  • Tahuti townsend
    Tahuti townsend 29 days ago

    does the pilot theory work with the delayed choice double slit experiment ??

  • Gv Subrahmanya
    Gv Subrahmanya 29 days ago

    This what I exactly thinking. I think even photon is a particle and I believe it is the most fundamental particle of the nature. These particles just create the distortion in the space time.

  • Bruce Daniel
    Bruce Daniel 1 month ago

    Do you have a good source of instructions for how to setup one of these systems? I'd like to build this at home.

  • Toderel Adrian-Aurel
    Toderel Adrian-Aurel 1 month ago

    Almost but the model is a little misleading. Is no separation between sphere droplets and vibrating substrate because we have 3D quantum particles in 3D space. This means that the sphere droplets vibrate 3D by spinning, shrinking and growing with great speed as a result of its internal luminiferous aether movements and interactions not as result of an external mecanical wake like cause.

  • free lance
    free lance 1 month ago

    but the droplets are a part of the wave ...

  • Sharing Solutions
    Sharing Solutions 1 month ago

    Louis de Broglie & the pilot wave theory. Thank you for explaining it so well.

  • Anthony Muscio
    Anthony Muscio 1 month ago

    This is a great illustration of an approach I have taken in attempting to deeply understand the double slit experiment. The idea is that the motion of the particle and its position in space is larger than the tolerances of the experiment, in this case, the wave motion outside of the droplet is greater than the difference between the two slits. It explains why the distribution of outcomes seems to be directly related to the two slits even if the "particle" passes through one slit only and also why the observer can affect the outcome because if an observer is near one of the two slits they become part of the experiment. It seems to me to be the application of okams razor to say the phenonium of the two slit experiment is due to an extended yet unseen field around the particle that is affected by both slits than it is to describe it as a superposition. I think that a particle will also appear to behave differently in a vacuum, a gas or in a liquid or solid because this "external" wave will be affected differently. When striking the plate at the back this external and wave-particle "collapses" to what appears to be a point perhaps because the particle is now in the presence of many more particles in the same volume the solid screen. We eject a particle towards the two slits and measure it at a point on the destination screen and ignore the real nature of the wave/particle in transit.

  • Z4chst3r
    Z4chst3r 1 month ago

    Pilot wave theory doesn't work, read this book and the chapter on Bohmian mechanics

  • Plaar
    Plaar 1 month ago

    How does this explain the collapse of the wavefunction on observation?

  • Jeff V
    Jeff V 1 month ago

    There is no such thing as physical distance. What physicist confuse with distance is really just the relationship of time and energy. Take the inverse square law of energy, the closer you seem to get to something is really just a logarithmic increase of force relative between two fields over a period of time. The clap you hear when your hands seem to 'come together'* is purely based on the sensitivity and bandwidth of your ears from what is being radiated as the the two field's inertia increases to a critical frequency and amplitude.

    I know... "come together"?, how is this possible if there is no such thing as distance? Well the simple answer is that the universe must be infinitely small. What is perceived as distance is purely psychological, as our brains must reinterpret sensor information that's being received through transducers that we call our senses. Then this information is changed to something that we can actually use. This is exactly how all your electronic devices work also. Nothing new under the sun here.

    This can also reveal the inherent issues in understanding the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang happened every time a sentient being has been given the ability to realize (sense) the universe around them. Where this infinitely small Universe literally explodes in size as our senses reinterpret the information through our psychological being. If you really think about this, you'll find out what a dirty little joke the name "Big Bang" is.

    If this is still confusing, ask yourself two questions: What size would the Universe be if you were born without any senses at all? What is the size of what makes Gravity or a Magnetic field?

    But I live in a physical Universe and how do my Eyes see distance? Your eyes, like all the sensors, have a bandwidth and sensitivity. Therefore, they are also filters. So when you see a wall, your eyes are actually filtering out everything between you and the wall that is outside of the bandwidth of your sight, and this is what we call distance.

  • James and Pat Carlisle

    very clear. The de Boglie interpretation is convincingly demonstrated here. What demo might show its limitations in explaining quantum phenomenon?

  • The Artificial Society

    Important Questions!! Someone with knowledge answer please!!: So for single slit there is an interference pattern even if individual particles are launched one at time. So if you had multiple wavelength particles, is it true that there would be an interference pattern from the multiple wavelengths in addition interference pattern from the single wave length particles? When you have multiple wavelengths, let's say two for argument sake, will superposition take place resulting in different wavelength particles being detected other than the original two wavelengths? If the wavelengths change, then if the particles are shot one at a time, do the detected particles transmute their wavelengths and not just their probability positions of detections? So for the wavelength transmutation question, in superposition of wavelengths, is superposition changing the probabilities of particle position detection or the wavelengths of the source particles also changing at detection?

  • TW0T0M
    TW0T0M 1 month ago

    interesting but how does this account for observation changing the results?

  • Li Alkalo
    Li Alkalo 1 month ago

    so how does pilot-wave theory explain that the patterns one observes in the double slit experiment depend on whether or not one measures through which slit the particle went? would a measurement then "destroy" the pilot wave, leaving the particle flying on a straight trajectory, which would lead to two separate detection regions instead of an interference pattern?

  • Fernando Gurgel
    Fernando Gurgel 1 month ago


  • simple salmon
    simple salmon 1 month ago

    Are both the mechanics of the oil droplet on the wave and the phenomena of quantum mechanics both reducible to the same equation? Or rather: are all quantum mechanical phenomena replicable by this oil droplet experiment? Or stated otherwise: Is the oil droplet experiment a fitting representation of Bohmian Mechanics? Please, I need an answer because I always thought the quantum force in Bohmian Mechanics as being quite "obscure" - a weird, unintuitive force just to coincide with the Copenhagen Interpretation. But in case Bohemian Mechanics is totally replicable with this experiment it (Bohemian Mechanics) would seem to me more natural, so to speak.

  • soccerhomie07
    soccerhomie07 1 month ago

    Those aren't the same kind of waves bro.

  • Subhajit Dey
    Subhajit Dey 1 month ago

    awesome videos never seen!

  • Rönny kh
    Rönny kh 1 month ago

    What the fukk just happened ? o.O

  • Bryan H
    Bryan H 1 month ago

    Pilot wave theory + Gravity: It seems to me that pilot wave theory should be easy to combine with gravity (relatively, physics is hard). You just have to think about gravity a little differently. Instead of working directly on the particle to attract it, gravity (mass) repels the particle’s pilot wave, pushing the wave out from under the particle and causing the particle to bounce toward the gravity source. I imagine the pilot waves would tend to move similarly to gas, in that gas moves from high-pressure areas to areas of lower pressure, and so the pilot waves would move from areas of high mass density to areas of lower mass density. If this is how gravity works, it will definitely behave differently than Einstein predicts at extreme levels, like repelling particles or even exerting no force at all at certain levels. It could explain why matter at the edges of galaxies seem to move too fast, and could also help explain why the universe seems to be expanding. Unfortunately, I don’t have the math expertise to even start developing the equations, but it seems like a plausible idea, and it might be worth looking into for someone much stronger with the Phorce than I.

  • Guilherme Garcia
    Guilherme Garcia 1 month ago


  • Justin Love
    Justin Love 1 month ago

    This is much more satisfactory for the lay science fan! The copenhagen sounds like sci fi, it offends my common sense - this I have no trouble understanding instantly. I am a great believer in personal perception of things i can see myself. I shall adopt this model until I reason to change. I don't believe the universe is determined though, as a determined universe cannot exist. In my humble opinion the basic fuel of all existence is uncertainty. Time is really a measure of uncertainty, there are many possible futures, as they approach the present, these possibilities begin to collapse into each other and the energy they releases is enough to power full reality, but only for a tiny amount of time. This is all that is needed though, because in the instant of the present, uncertainty is used up and there is no reason why it should continue to exist.
    The universe is like a dragon chasing its own tail and when it catches it time will end.

  • omnme1
    omnme1 1 month ago

    If the pilot theory is true, shouldn't that mean quantum computers wont work?

  • Michael De Rita
    Michael De Rita 1 month ago

    cute gay man...

  • Ken Murphy
    Ken Murphy 1 month ago

    Best double slit demonstration Iv ever seen and the most accurate for what is really going on. It actually shows how the electron ends up at different locations.

Analyse website