Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

schrodinger shenanigan

fileto

7,165 subscribers

26,391 views • 2 years ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

2 Comments

4042 years ago

@filetopoebus Yeah

King 🍉2 years ago

@filetopoebus I get it

Related Videos

Pavlov and Schrodinger

Pavlov and Schrodinger

fileto

72,489 views • 1 month ago

The mimi sentry shenanigan #TeamFortress2 #TF2

The mimi sentry shenanigan #TeamFortress2 #TF2

Ehtma Reiner

15,988 views • 3 years ago

'Enough of this shenanigan,' PDP chieftain Bode George asks Seyi Makinde and Nyesom Wike to sheathe the sword. #PoliticsToday

'Enough of this shenanigan,' PDP chieftain Bode George asks Seyi Makinde and Nyesom Wike to sheathe the sword. #PoliticsToday

Channels Television

28,720 views • 7 months ago

Let’s do quantum mechanics in IGBO LANGUAGE.. Free class. Time independent Schrodinger wave equation in IGBO. See English version on YouTube and subscribe 💪

Let’s do quantum mechanics in IGBO LANGUAGE.. Free class. Time independent Schrodinger wave equation in IGBO. See English version on YouTube and subscribe 💪

Chioma Oji

64,701 views • 1 year ago

Stop cramming Schrodinger wave equations. Come let me show you why I am the BOSS in quantum mechanics… i will give you the full gist.. This is a question from a fan. Topic: Time independent Schrodinger wave equation. See full video on YouTube follow the comments section link.👇 Make sure to subscribe to my YouTube channel. I will make everyone a physicist..

Stop cramming Schrodinger wave equations. Come let me show you why I am the BOSS in quantum mechanics… i will give you the full gist.. This is a question from a fan. Topic: Time independent Schrodinger wave equation. See full video on YouTube follow the comments section link.👇 Make sure to subscribe to my YouTube channel. I will make everyone a physicist..

Chioma Oji

134,868 views • 1 year ago

Laplace,Wave , Schrodinger and Heat equations are fundamental partial differential equations Visualization |Animation | Interactive applet GeoGebra #geogebra #math #science #iteachmath #mtbos #visualization #elearning Bernat ANCOCHEA #physics

Laplace,Wave , Schrodinger and Heat equations are fundamental partial differential equations Visualization |Animation | Interactive applet GeoGebra #geogebra #math #science #iteachmath #mtbos #visualization #elearning Bernat ANCOCHEA #physics

Daniel Mentrard

24,692 views • 11 months ago

Full video of Trixie, Crazy Ramona and cia shenanigan😭😂 What is going on in BBmzansi house guys 😳😭 #BBMzansiS6 #BBMzansi

Full video of Trixie, Crazy Ramona and cia shenanigan😭😂 What is going on in BBmzansi house guys 😳😭 #BBMzansiS6 #BBMzansi

Naomi🌹

15,233 views • 7 months ago

Heat,Wave and Schrodinger equations are fundamental linear partial differential equations of physics Visualization |Animation | Interactive applet GeoGebra #geogebra #math #science #iteachmath #mtbos #visualization #elearning Bernat ANCOCHEA #physics

Heat,Wave and Schrodinger equations are fundamental linear partial differential equations of physics Visualization |Animation | Interactive applet GeoGebra #geogebra #math #science #iteachmath #mtbos #visualization #elearning Bernat ANCOCHEA #physics

Daniel Mentrard

57,956 views • 1 year ago

$3000 on the NSW tote. Last bet of the day. Jigsaw in the Quokka. Tacking Point Tavern in Port Mac. How good is a Shenanigan. 🍺🍺🍺

$3000 on the NSW tote. Last bet of the day. Jigsaw in the Quokka. Tacking Point Tavern in Port Mac. How good is a Shenanigan. 🍺🍺🍺

Dave Stanley

30,711 views • 4 months ago

Que no os engañen, las mujeres no van a comprar el discurso de los "bro" y esos gurús "de pelo duro como jabalí". Hemos estado con Rocío Vidal, La gata de Schrodinger, experta en desenmascarar fraudes y pseudociencias, que se ha infiltrado en varias comunidades masculinistas. Podast "Dinero, mujeres, testosterona: cómo nace un bro" »

Que no os engañen, las mujeres no van a comprar el discurso de los "bro" y esos gurús "de pelo duro como jabalí". Hemos estado con Rocío Vidal, La gata de Schrodinger, experta en desenmascarar fraudes y pseudociencias, que se ha infiltrado en varias comunidades masculinistas. Podast "Dinero, mujeres, testosterona: cómo nace un bro" »

Javier Gallego Crudo

48,472 views • 4 months ago

Senator FCPA Billow Kerrow demystifying the misconceptions around relative comparison of poverty in Northern Kenya vis a vie the more privileged regions. Interesting to note the hyped population numbers for counties are not true. I can now see the fear of one man one shilling should not scare us so much. Once this is one shilling shenanigan is implemented those advocating for it will cry.

Senator FCPA Billow Kerrow demystifying the misconceptions around relative comparison of poverty in Northern Kenya vis a vie the more privileged regions. Interesting to note the hyped population numbers for counties are not true. I can now see the fear of one man one shilling should not scare us so much. Once this is one shilling shenanigan is implemented those advocating for it will cry.

Simba Guleid

18,873 views • 1 year ago

INTERVIEW: Economists were the ones to always tell me, ‘Mario, the Iran war is all about China. Trump wants Kharg Island and control of the Strait of Hormuz to have leverage over China’ Well, if that’s the case, then the war is far from over, and all this MOU shenanigan is just delaying the inevitable And that’s exactly what Economist Jeff Snider explains to me in this interview: The US will not stop attacking Iran until it controls Hormuz, period.

INTERVIEW: Economists were the ones to always tell me, ‘Mario, the Iran war is all about China. Trump wants Kharg Island and control of the Strait of Hormuz to have leverage over China’ Well, if that’s the case, then the war is far from over, and all this MOU shenanigan is just delaying the inevitable And that’s exactly what Economist Jeff Snider explains to me in this interview: The US will not stop attacking Iran until it controls Hormuz, period.

Mario Nawfal

289,639 views • 2 months ago

Tal cual dije, si ellas dicen que con 35 años están para un "muchachito de 25", pues olé ellas, que son muy empoderadas. Si lo haces tú, La Gata de Schrodinger se hace un vídeo de 2 minutos llorando. ¿Por qué? Porque no soportan quedarse sin su monopolio del mercado sехual, no soportan no ser el centro de atención y verse descartadas. No es más que female intrasexual competition. Casualmente cuando están en sus 20's ninguna se queja de que los hombres exitosos de 30's le entren; se quejan y te señalan cuando tienen 30's y son mucho menos cotizadas en el mercado.

Sensitive content

Tal cual dije, si ellas dicen que con 35 años están para un "muchachito de 25", pues olé ellas, que son muy empoderadas. Si lo haces tú, La Gata de Schrodinger se hace un vídeo de 2 minutos llorando. ¿Por qué? Porque no soportan quedarse sin su monopolio del mercado sехual, no soportan no ser el centro de atención y verse descartadas. No es más que female intrasexual competition. Casualmente cuando están en sus 20's ninguna se queja de que los hombres exitosos de 30's le entren; se quejan y te señalan cuando tienen 30's y son mucho menos cotizadas en el mercado.

Clonazepam

515,285 views • 3 months ago

Easy says he's 100% out of Bitcoin because Strategy will keep selling it to pay their dividend "This is the most bearish thing. So last night I sold my Bitcoin. I was holding a good amount of coins, I'm completely out of Bitcoin" "100% out of Bitcoin, I hold no Bitcoin right now, zero dollars of Bitcoin. And yeah, I can miss the move. This is so incredibly, beyond bearish, I cannot emphasize how bearish this is" "They have 32 years of dividend coverage, which means they're comfortable continuing to just sell Bitcoin. That's 55 billion at current prices" "Bitcoin is a volatile asset that they're paying dividends with to fund $STRC, and STRC is trading at $90 right now when it's supposed to be pegged to $100. This whole shenanigan is very bad for Bitcoin, because now you have overhang"

Easy says he's 100% out of Bitcoin because Strategy will keep selling it to pay their dividend "This is the most bearish thing. So last night I sold my Bitcoin. I was holding a good amount of coins, I'm completely out of Bitcoin" "100% out of Bitcoin, I hold no Bitcoin right now, zero dollars of Bitcoin. And yeah, I can miss the move. This is so incredibly, beyond bearish, I cannot emphasize how bearish this is" "They have 32 years of dividend coverage, which means they're comfortable continuing to just sell Bitcoin. That's 55 billion at current prices" "Bitcoin is a volatile asset that they're paying dividends with to fund $STRC, and STRC is trading at $90 right now when it's supposed to be pegged to $100. This whole shenanigan is very bad for Bitcoin, because now you have overhang"

Casper

60,541 views • 2 months ago

$"For a nation to progress it is important for people to spend time on science, mathematics and literature instead of spending time showing that 5000 years ago their ancestors did science, mathematics and literature." J J Thomson won the 1906 (not 1907 as claimed) Nobel Prize in Physics "in recognition of the great merits of his theoretical and experimental investigations on the conduction of electricity by gases." His son, G P Thomson (not P J Thomson) won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1937 for showing "diffraction properties" of electrons. Erwin Schrodinger never called electrons wavicles and it was not in 1932, but 1926, and Nobel Prize in 1933, for the Schrodinger wave equation describing the behaviour of a particle in a field of force or the change of a physical quantity over time. The equation showed that electrons can have the properties of either waves or particles, and their state can only be calculated with probability This discovery settled the dispute over whether quantum objects such as electrons, atoms, or molecules were waves or particles. Werner Heisenberg never said "we don't know what an electron is. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1932 (not 1956) for his theory of quantum mechanics and its applications, including the discovery of allotropic forms of hydrogen. The original concept of the photon was developed by Albert Einstein. In 1926 the optical physicist Frithiof Wolfers and the chemist Gilbert N. Lewis coined the name photon for these particles. Photons have nothing to do with electrons that was the point of discussion until now. The Hindu scriptures have nothing scientific in them. Absolutely nothing. Like all other Holy scriptures, it's fiction. B M Hegde was a reputable Cardiologist. But now he's an Ayurveda sympathizing quack who has rented out his brain in memory of ancient Sages who wrote fictionalized observations from primal theories. B M Hegde is now a shell of his former self mostly guided by spinal level thinking, brought on by senility and loss of logic. Stop circulating his videos on social media. He's merely the remnant of an intelligence from a bygone era.$

"For a nation to progress it is important for people to spend time on science, mathematics and literature instead of spending time showing that 5000 years ago their ancestors did science, mathematics and literature." J J Thomson won the 1906 (not 1907 as claimed) Nobel Prize in Physics "in recognition of the great merits of his theoretical and experimental investigations on the conduction of electricity by gases." His son, G P Thomson (not P J Thomson) won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1937 for showing "diffraction properties" of electrons. Erwin Schrodinger never called electrons wavicles and it was not in 1932, but 1926, and Nobel Prize in 1933, for the Schrodinger wave equation describing the behaviour of a particle in a field of force or the change of a physical quantity over time. The equation showed that electrons can have the properties of either waves or particles, and their state can only be calculated with probability This discovery settled the dispute over whether quantum objects such as electrons, atoms, or molecules were waves or particles. Werner Heisenberg never said "we don't know what an electron is. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1932 (not 1956) for his theory of quantum mechanics and its applications, including the discovery of allotropic forms of hydrogen. The original concept of the photon was developed by Albert Einstein. In 1926 the optical physicist Frithiof Wolfers and the chemist Gilbert N. Lewis coined the name photon for these particles. Photons have nothing to do with electrons that was the point of discussion until now. The Hindu scriptures have nothing scientific in them. Absolutely nothing. Like all other Holy scriptures, it's fiction. B M Hegde was a reputable Cardiologist. But now he's an Ayurveda sympathizing quack who has rented out his brain in memory of ancient Sages who wrote fictionalized observations from primal theories. B M Hegde is now a shell of his former self mostly guided by spinal level thinking, brought on by senility and loss of logic. Stop circulating his videos on social media. He's merely the remnant of an intelligence from a bygone era.

TheLiverDoc™

204,568 views • 2 years ago

History is made: Fine structure mystery solved? /🧵 UPDATE: My model may have solved an outstanding question in physics: the origin of the fine structure constant. I found a robust source and it works even with some tuning within -3% to 7% over a massive range of non-linear fields. What is the fine structure constant? Watch the video below and you'll find out. Essentially its a mysterious constant that occurs in atomic and subatomic physics that has no unit. Countless people have tried to find a reason for it, and most have turned to numerology. I did something that only could work in this age of LLMs and someone who is a motivated expert in the field. Did a massive paper search, found the material in 10 minutes, aligned everything, then had it double check for me. Note that I wasn't looking for it. It occurred to me by accident when I was developing my bilinear principle of electromagnetic interaction. Within an hour, I had a value for it. My idea was simple: apply my non-linear soliton model to the electron in a way that makes my current x current interaction make sense not just at the atomic level but the subatomic level. Look at E = mc^2. It's the same as E = (sqrt(m) c)(sqrt(m) c). If sqrt(m) could be scaled to a charge, then you could interpret it as two scaled currents multiplying against each other. This is almost identical to the equation for the energy contained within an inductor L with a current I running through it: E = 0.5 L I^2. So far, sketchy right? Here's the thing, vortexes are solitons and they can exist in superfluids -- they even have quantised "Noether charge". They acquire a mass from their vorticity, have an energy associated with them and can move at any speed inside the medium with a different speed. Exactly like electrons! So my idea was to map the electron exactly to these vortices. If I could predict the mass of the electron, I could actually finally connect mass to electromagentism properly (Planck's argument is elegant but indirect). I used dimensional analysis to do this. It took a few tries to get it right and I had it checked by 10 different instances of the highest powered LLMs. With this first order approximation I got within 1/4th of the mass. It was almost exactly 1/4th... so I realised, I had to use a double cover to make it like SU(2). After another half an hour of research, I felt confident in using something like Dirac's scissor to do it. A kind of knot within the electron. It got me within 1.2% of the mass of the electron... but there was a problem, the mass of the electron occurred on the other side of the equation. I cringed at myself. Such an amateur mistake, I thought. But the LLM (Opus 4.5) actually corrected me and told me I had just accidentally derived the fine structure constant. Why? Because the mass terms cancelled out, or if one prefers, leave behind a correction ratio. Set that correction ratio and you get a function that implicitly defines the fine structure constant through two "parameters": 1. The actual geometry of the soliton/vortex. 2. The non-linearity of the medium and how it changed the vortex core. I went back and found an equation from friggin' Lord Kelvin, derived in the Victorian era. I then found an analysis from 1970 on the Non-linear Schrodinger Equation (NLSE) applied to exactly this domain but for a larger scale soliton in superfluids -- it didn't matter though because a superfluid and the medium of space are scale free as I had proven in the superconduction part of my paper. In any case plugging these two approximation in got me within 1.2% of the fine structure constant by solving the following implicit equation: 1 = 8 * pi * alpha (Log_e(8/alpha) - alpha_core) Where alpha_core is 1.615 in the NLSE. The most incredible thing? It was a ROBUST value for thin ring vortices. Even if you adjusted the alpha_core from 1.5-2, the values for the fine structure constant only changed between -3% to +7%. I cannot emphasise how incredible this result is -- it means that the actual non-linear equation and the other candidate geometries that reproduce SU(2) can actually get the exact value of the fine structure constant. I don't know of anyone who even approached this problem in this way without making ansatz or postulates. I'm still checking through the math in disbelief. If it's wrong it's going to be beautifully wrong. All LLMs I've ran it through agree with the math, just not the foundations which is expected due to their QED bias. This will be in chapter 11 of my paper. I've already sketched out the full derivation. This SIGNIFICANTLY strengthens an already game changing paper. I promise it'll be the last discovery I include and thank you for your patience. I wrote this full update out because of the significance of this development. Details will be in the paper, even if there was a mistake (it'll be shuffled on its own into the appendix -- but I really hope it all checks out). 💝🥰 /End

History is made: Fine structure mystery solved? /🧵 UPDATE: My model may have solved an outstanding question in physics: the origin of the fine structure constant. I found a robust source and it works even with some tuning within -3% to 7% over a massive range of non-linear fields. What is the fine structure constant? Watch the video below and you'll find out. Essentially its a mysterious constant that occurs in atomic and subatomic physics that has no unit. Countless people have tried to find a reason for it, and most have turned to numerology. I did something that only could work in this age of LLMs and someone who is a motivated expert in the field. Did a massive paper search, found the material in 10 minutes, aligned everything, then had it double check for me. Note that I wasn't looking for it. It occurred to me by accident when I was developing my bilinear principle of electromagnetic interaction. Within an hour, I had a value for it. My idea was simple: apply my non-linear soliton model to the electron in a way that makes my current x current interaction make sense not just at the atomic level but the subatomic level. Look at E = mc^2. It's the same as E = (sqrt(m) c)(sqrt(m) c). If sqrt(m) could be scaled to a charge, then you could interpret it as two scaled currents multiplying against each other. This is almost identical to the equation for the energy contained within an inductor L with a current I running through it: E = 0.5 L I^2. So far, sketchy right? Here's the thing, vortexes are solitons and they can exist in superfluids -- they even have quantised "Noether charge". They acquire a mass from their vorticity, have an energy associated with them and can move at any speed inside the medium with a different speed. Exactly like electrons! So my idea was to map the electron exactly to these vortices. If I could predict the mass of the electron, I could actually finally connect mass to electromagentism properly (Planck's argument is elegant but indirect). I used dimensional analysis to do this. It took a few tries to get it right and I had it checked by 10 different instances of the highest powered LLMs. With this first order approximation I got within 1/4th of the mass. It was almost exactly 1/4th... so I realised, I had to use a double cover to make it like SU(2). After another half an hour of research, I felt confident in using something like Dirac's scissor to do it. A kind of knot within the electron. It got me within 1.2% of the mass of the electron... but there was a problem, the mass of the electron occurred on the other side of the equation. I cringed at myself. Such an amateur mistake, I thought. But the LLM (Opus 4.5) actually corrected me and told me I had just accidentally derived the fine structure constant. Why? Because the mass terms cancelled out, or if one prefers, leave behind a correction ratio. Set that correction ratio and you get a function that implicitly defines the fine structure constant through two "parameters": 1. The actual geometry of the soliton/vortex. 2. The non-linearity of the medium and how it changed the vortex core. I went back and found an equation from friggin' Lord Kelvin, derived in the Victorian era. I then found an analysis from 1970 on the Non-linear Schrodinger Equation (NLSE) applied to exactly this domain but for a larger scale soliton in superfluids -- it didn't matter though because a superfluid and the medium of space are scale free as I had proven in the superconduction part of my paper. In any case plugging these two approximation in got me within 1.2% of the fine structure constant by solving the following implicit equation: 1 = 8 * pi * alpha (Log_e(8/alpha) - alpha_core) Where alpha_core is 1.615 in the NLSE. The most incredible thing? It was a ROBUST value for thin ring vortices. Even if you adjusted the alpha_core from 1.5-2, the values for the fine structure constant only changed between -3% to +7%. I cannot emphasise how incredible this result is -- it means that the actual non-linear equation and the other candidate geometries that reproduce SU(2) can actually get the exact value of the fine structure constant. I don't know of anyone who even approached this problem in this way without making ansatz or postulates. I'm still checking through the math in disbelief. If it's wrong it's going to be beautifully wrong. All LLMs I've ran it through agree with the math, just not the foundations which is expected due to their QED bias. This will be in chapter 11 of my paper. I've already sketched out the full derivation. This SIGNIFICANTLY strengthens an already game changing paper. I promise it'll be the last discovery I include and thank you for your patience. I wrote this full update out because of the significance of this development. Details will be in the paper, even if there was a mistake (it'll be shuffled on its own into the appendix -- but I really hope it all checks out). 💝🥰 /End

Korobochka (コロボ) 🇦🇺✝️🇷🇺

47,180 views • 8 months ago