3 Common Misconceptions About Quantum Mechanics [ft. Higgsino Physics]

Quantum mechanics is a complicated subject. Not only can it be incredibly mathematically challenging, but it also inherently goes against our intuition about how the world around us works. This naturally leads to misconceptions about the subject arising from either misunderstandings or miscommunications. This can give people the wrong ideas about quantum mechanics and these (often incorrect) interpretations can frequently be seen in pop-culture or even spiritual/religious ideals. Higgsino physics joins me in trying to dispel three of these common misconceptions about quantum mechanics.

[Pengochan]

I always found that Feynman quote very unfortunate.
It sounds like quantum mechanics is some kind of wizardry, and physicists don't really understand what they're doing with it (well, in a way they don't, but if that standard is applied to most other subjects, then nobody understands anything but the most trivial things, maybe with the exception of mathematical theorems).
For most quantum mechanics is "unintuitive", and what means is, that our experience of the world is much closer to classical mechanics. But one *can* develop an intuition for quantum mechanics by studying quantum mechanical systems in theory and in experiments, in fact that is much easier now, since with the maturing of quantum mechanics the didactics has also made a lot of progress, as has notation.
When comparing our understanding of e.g. the precession of a rotating solid object to the understanding of the double slit experiment I'd even think the latter is a bit easier to comprehend. In both cases one will need mathematical abstractions to "understand" (i.e. visualize) what's going on. If one goes down the rabbit hole, one will lead to Newtons law of motion, the other to the Schrödinger equation. And Newtons law of motion also needs some getting used to, since our experience typically includes frictional forces and gravity taken for granted.

[Higgsinophysics]

I had a blast creating this video with you! Thanks for inviting me to contribute to this fun topic :)

[Achrononmaster]

@4:00 Mr Higgsino is probably wrong there, imho. Has he considered the Frauchiger-Renner Inconsistency? QM cannot consistently account for QM. It is a convoluted case of Wigner's Friend, a bit like a Cantor-Gödel diagonal argument. Totalizing QM (a fail) is not just about large objects making it trickier to compute the interference, it is about the larger and more exposed a system the more likely entanglement structure breaks down, and so interference does not occur, and that makes a classical account valid. (See also Jacob Barandes, who describes this — without needing an unphysical Hilbert space — as a breakdown of non-Markov indivisibility in the underlying stochastic dynamics transition probabilities). Applied to the universe as a whole you can then see gravity does not need to be (re)quantized, since GR was already a quantum theory (if spacetime is nonclassical, i.e., admits nontrivial topology, i.e., indivisible non-Markov transitions, i.e., entanglement topology).

[alphaomega]

I believe AE was right. However, imagine this. You and I have a a dice. The goal is to add up to 7. I show a 2 and you show a 5. We do this many times and it never fail. You must be reading my mind. 4 +3. 6+1. How are you doing that. Even you don't know! That is spooky action at a distance in Bhor's mind. How are we correlated?

[PrettyMuchPhysics]

Great video! Especially the entanglement ≠ interaction was easy to understand 👍

[Mayank-mfxr]

Good work. Much needed when pop culture is drenched with misinformation. You both got my sub.

[sdal]

some explanations about misconceptions contains some misconceptions. Like the explanation of entanglement and observer effect.

[Richard_is_cool]

Nice video, thanks! And good luck to your channel!

[enterprisesoftwarearchitect]

The gravity of the particle traveling through the slit isn’t an interactive detector? Any wall is essentially a large spring with a really small spring constant. Something is missing in your description. Maybe some fancy decoherence math. But awesome videos.

[mousakandah]

I don't buy into the "consciousness causes collpase" theory but to be fair, the idea that decoherence always causes collapse is not necessarily true

there are several interaction free experiments that have been made

sure Decoherence is a collapsing mechanism but experiments show it isn't the only collapsing mechanism

[aryangoswami]

Sir you explain meserment problem but device effect Superpostion Or not ?

[mrnarason]

For the second one, doesn't the absurdity of Schrodinger's cat show that quantum mechanical effects like superposition doesn't apply to macroscopic objects?

[aryangoswami]

Sir large scale object including humans have a quantam effects
In daily life? Pls answer

[mikelorenzo]

I do have to ask though: why is there a difference between the existence of a detector behind a slit and the existence of the slit itself? Why does the former collapse the wavefunction while the latter does not? Have I stumbled into the measurement problem of the Copenhagen interpretation or am I off base?

[adosar]

After the electron passes the slit with the detector why the wavefunction doesn't evolve again to give us a pattern like the one without the detector? Thanks in advance.

[MEBVishwaS]

Is it impossible to understand quantum mechanics intuitively?

[gowrissshanker]

Respected sir, 🌟 how single slit interference pattern is been formed....it is so wierd to hear... single wave interfered with itself.
... when and why this happens...will water undergo single slit interference....if so why you did not mention In this vedio....??
Thank you sir 🌟

[premed]

And if we don't observe the state of the detector...

[peterfireflylund]

"Higgsino Physics" lives in Denmark but his accent sounds more German than Danish sometimes. What's going on? A German in Denmark? A guy from Duborg?

[israeldelrio]

Sorry, saying that observing one of the two balls affects the other simply because they shared a wavefunction ignores the reality that *something* connected to both balls has to inform the complementary ball of the event. This is a case of providing a mathematical explanation as a cover for not being able to provide a physical explanation for the phenomena.