A Brief History Of Quantum Mechanics
June 9, 2010 by Actaphysica
Filed under Archive
Quantum Mechanics (Part 1): A Brief History Of Quantum Mechanics. — Subscribe to Science & Reason: • www.youtube.com • www.youtube.com • www.youtube.com — 1. A Brief History Of Quantum Mechanics www.youtube.com 2. The Structure Of Atoms www.youtube.com 3. Wave Function And Wave-Particle Duality www.youtube.com 4. The Uncertainty Principle www.youtube.com 5. The Spin Of Fundamental Particles 6. Quantum Entanglement — The history of quantum mechanics began essentially with the 1838 discovery of cathode rays by Michael Faraday, the 1859 statement of the black body radiation problem by Gustav Kirchhoff, the 1877 suggestion by Ludwig Boltzmann that the energy states of a physical system could be discrete, and the 1900 quantum hypothesis by Max Planck that any energy is radiated and absorbed in quantities divisible by discrete energy elements, E, such that each of these energy elements is proportional to the frequency ν with which they each individually radiate energy. Planck insisted that this was simply an aspect of the processes of absorption and emission of radiation and had nothing to do with the physical reality of the radiation itself. However, at that time, this appeared not to explain the photoelectric effect (1839), ie that shining light on certain materials can function to eject electrons from the material. In 1905, basing his work on Plancks quantum hypothesis, Albert Einstein postulated that light itself consists of individual quanta. These later came to be …
Video Rating: 4 / 5
Lecture 1 of Leonard Susskind’s Modern Physics course concentrating on Quantum Mechanics. Recorded January 14, 2008 at Stanford University. This Stanford Continuing Studies course is the second of a six-quarter sequence of classes exploring the essential theoretical foundations of modern physics. The topics covered in this course focus on quantum mechanics. Leonard Susskind is the Felix Bloch Professor of Physics at Stanford University. Complete playlist for the course: youtube.com Stanford Continuing Studies: continuingstudies.stanford.edu About Leonard Susskind: www.stanford.edu Stanford University channel on YouTube: www.youtube.com
Video Rating: 4 / 5
![The Dark Matter & Dark Energy [1/5]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rLmcbjLVPKc/default.jpg)
@AntiCitizenX watch the double slit expiriment
i
[Reply]
So, light behaves like a wave, light only travels with certain amounts of energy, only certain wavelenghts interfere with the entity called electron.
And the conclusion is that light is small particle-waves that hit electrons?
What great “conclusion” ! Those “scientists” must’ve been geniuses.
Too bad they had no idea what wave, energy and electrons are.
[Reply]
@theeAlphaOne No probs ;P
[Reply]
@jimbobur , Thanks for the correction = )
[Reply]
@theeAlphaOne Ahem.. It’s Planck not plank… ;P
[Reply]
i thought this was space mechanic porn XD /jk taste it in wave or particle form still high in protein
[Reply]
where do you get the periodic table at 0:48?
[Reply]
What is the difference between planck’s photon and newton’s corpuscles?
[Reply]
where?
[Reply]
oops 462 is green I think
[Reply]
I posted a respoince on the comment page
[Reply]
A PARTICLE MOVES THROUGH SPACE WHICH IS GOOD. IT ALSO TRAVELS UP AND DOWN THE SPACE BETWEEN TWO POSITIONS UP OR DOWN IS THE NANOMETER MESURMENT. 562 NANOMETERS IS RED, 426 NANOMETERS IS YELLOW. the partical has a twin and the act on one another to form this wave monement,
[Reply]
Wow, 107+ quantum physics know it all’s together in one place, amazing…….and they can’t even spell plank’s name right.
Who the hell is Plonk , step to the back of the line please
[Reply]
plonk’s theory didnt solve teh catastrophe, it actually reinforced the idea that tehre realy shouldn’t have been one, so why was there one, and how did they explain it?
how do you figure out the mass and volume of an object at a very far distance?
[Reply]
how to you find teh spectrum of a substance?
[Reply]
the lines are formed by the folded syatems of the players over lapping square ,real light has spin 3.
these are eid lines lines
prior to this there are seemily no wave vibrations
these are the ways of gold.
outside is silver
get your mental rapist cases out of me queen
the ev is duded by the spin of the waves E
in these system are vowels
see hebrews for vowel reasoning
photox is actually seemily the value f in the c f ,and enters overlapping into E.claw
that was boring
[Reply]
/watch?v=3Zpg5yLFKnI
[Reply]
@xKingPola3ux
that’s how solar panels work, sun hits the panel which releases electrons and creates a circuit (this is a very simplified version)
[Reply]
einstein said that shinign a light on a metal pate will release electrons. why cant we use the suns light to do this as a source of energy?
or is that what solar power is all about?
[Reply]
i dont get the wavelength colour thing. I can turn a light any colour using translucent material, so will the energy of the light change>?
[Reply]
@bigg132
You are everything you exclaim in other words. You’ve apparently done it all. Thanks for concluding that I’m right. No argument here. There is no win or lose. You may believe something or anothers way that you haven’t looked at before. A different perspective so to type. That is what all the difference in opinions are. You point out the reason you believe something and someone else either does or doesn’t have to. It is just differences not wins and losses.
[Reply]
@DecentralizedByGuilt i just saw the first page, i didnt know it ended, chill out
[Reply]
@bigg132 Butting into a conversation that has already ended, ended 3 fucking days ago, and not even adding anythng of value, just a regurgitated very old dis. wow. really? seriously take a hike, idiot
[Reply]
@krrrruptidsoless arguing over the internet is like running in the special Olympics…. even if you win you’re still retarded. so stop ur bickering and come to an even stand point and call it done.
[Reply]
@DecentralizedByGuilt arguing over the internet is like running in the special Olympics…. even if you win you’re still retarded. so stop ur bickering and come to an even stand point and call it done.
[Reply]
@Killua2001 This lectures are also good for physicists to refresh their knowledge and look on them from different view.
[Reply]
@QuaterionEM hush you elitist prick, learning is asking questions.
[Reply]
So, I’m 13 and I can’t wait for Physics in high school! yeah I know I’m a no-life haha!
[Reply]
@nickharvey7 A flat Earth is a good aproximation to a round earth, as long as the distances on the surface remain short. Thatfor, it’s not paradox. And that sentence does not make sense. Most of the paradoxies from QM are not even linked to time.
I highly doubt, that you even know what you are talking about.
[Reply]
@Schmidt975 The shape of the Earth was a paradox when we believed it was flat. It seems to me we have paradoxes when we dont have a full understanding of something. The sentence on QM makes sense because we can take any classical object and at the level of the atoms we will find the Uncertainty Principle. Classical physics is based on quantum physics not the other way round.
[Reply]
@nickharvey7
The shape of the earth is not paradox. The sentence with QM does not make any sense. It’s not even remotely true. But I’ll wait for your long explanation.
We should probably take this discussion to PMs and put the result up as a video or something
[Reply]
@Schmidt975 Is it not in the nature of Man to try and understand these paradoxes? The shape of the Earth was once a paradox before we had understanding of its spherical shape. The paradoxes of QM make sense once they are linked to the passage or flow of time because in Quantum Atom Theory the radiating energy that forms the Uncertainty Principle and the Measurement Problem. Also forms the passage of time and the geometry of spacetime.
Further explanation is on your channel comments.
[Reply]
@nickharvey7 Nope.Yes. Nope.
“The paradoxes of QM make sense once they are linked to the massage of time.”
Paradoxes don’t make sense. Otherwise they wouldn’t be paradox now would they?
“We have the Uncertainty Principle and the Measurement Problem because the future is always uncertain always immeasurable. ”
Nope.
Further explanation is in a message I send you.
[Reply]
Whoever asked the annoying question around 1:14…..
……shut the hell up.
You don’t have any question worth interrupting Leonard Susskind over.
Zip it.
I don’t care what you think, you couldn’t carry Susskinds lunch pail
and it shows your insecurity that you have to ask a question that
makes him lose track of where he was in the lecture.
You robbed all of us of a nugget of brilliance with that
self centered omega mail type move.
[Reply]
I’m 14 and i just watched this whole video. How cool am i?
[Reply]
@Schmidt975 Is thermodynamics not based on QM at the quantum level? If the principles of quantum physics are universal then everything must be based on them even the mind of the observer. Could it not be that we have a limited point of view because we dont understand time? The paradoxes of QM make sense once they are linked to the massage of time. We have the Uncertainty Principle and the Measurement Problem because the future is always uncertain always immeasurable.
[Reply]
@nickharvey7 The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is one of the factors that keeps us from predicting the future accurately, but not the only one.
We have not been able to find quantized spacetime. Thatfor: yes, continuously, by the understanding of totday.
Future and past comes from thermodynamics, but we have trouble understanding time.
QM is only paradox from our point of view. But almost anything is paradox from our limited point of view
[Reply]
Could Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle be the same uncertainty that the observer will have with any future event? Could time and the geometry of spacetime be continuously formed by the momentum of EMR or light form one atom to another? There is no understanding of time in modern physics or why we have a future and a past. Could this be why we have the paradoxes of QM?
[Reply]
Leonard is no ordinary man, such wisdom
[Reply]
This is a good video to use if you can’t fall asleep at night.
[Reply]
haha these people pay all this money and I could get the same lectures on my ipod for free xD I know it’s not the same but still haha
[Reply]
does anyone know who he was talking about who teaches the freshmen classes?
[Reply]
E=mc2 used in:A quantum super computer would be levitated and only laser light and magnetic signals would be processed no electrical circuits only photo-voltaic laser memory symbols of ones and zeros are processed. Reflection of light is monitored on how fast laser light glowing cells can recognize the ones meaning light on and zero when light is off measuring like a strobe light; I ask how fast can a solar cell recognize laser strobe light: E=mc2 is infinite speed of a laser photo-diode
[Reply]
@xdarkxxsoilx lol i wonder how advanced you can get something at this calabre before it just becomes none logical. I fear any more complications with this topic might edge over the border of fantacy. Im done after 40 minutes. This is way too heavy for me
[Reply]
@shakagenghis wow you just explained his who speech to me in one sentence, thanks shakagenghis, I was well confused what he was one about
[Reply]
I like this program. I’d definately do it when I get older:)
[Reply]
@stevieola333
thank you! but methinks God transcends the laws of physics!
[Reply]
@listminusv
you are an idiot
[Reply]
god = the laws of physics…?! interesting…what do you think?
[Reply]
I can’t accept the wave/particle duality of the small. Any waves I have experienced have been formed from particles. The waves in the pool, the waves of sound, all made of particles. When we move to the microcosm, we see only sailboats, but no water on which to float. And yet the sailboats all travel at the same speed without a clear means of propulsion. Perhaps space is comprised of waves, particles without mass or charge. I prefer to add postulates than to accept a paradox. Nothing can’t be.
[Reply]