Is This What Quantum Mechanics Looks Like?

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

Views: 1740749
Runtime: 7:41
Comments: 6099

Tags for this video:

Find more videos in the: "27"
Uploaded by:
See more videos uploaded by


Author Jonaca Carr ( ago)
The BEST explaination ever. This is a real paradigm shifter. Awesome

Author Juha Kilpinen ( ago)
This really makes you wonder if there is some truth in the modern aether theories and anisotropic one-way speed of light experiment results

Author Karin Rodrigues ( ago)
This is ridiculously awesome! :-) No I have to adjust some of my own theories :-P

Author Paul Richter ( ago)
Pilot wave! Hands down. Completely lame to think about the Copenhagen interpretation. The idea that whole universes are created at every decision tree violates not just common sense, but the conservation of energy, and not by a small measure, but exponentially!

Author Jan ( ago)
One of the best videos you have ever made :)

Author Bryant Meyers ( ago)
Thank you for the thought provoking video. It is worth emphasizing that Bell's theorem and the experiments by Aspect and others do NOT rule out non-local hidden variable theories, such as David Bohm's for example. You definitely can have a deterministic theory that fits the experimental data, but it is NECESSARY to include the spooky action-at-a-distance, otherwise it will not work.
In my opinion, I think Occam's razor actually favors ordinary quantum mechanics, but it is nice having different viewpoints to illuminate the mystery of the Quantum Realm.

Author Rhett R ( ago)
Let's see: Quantum Mechanics only makes probability predictions. No mechanisms are inherent in the theory itself.

So we could posit:

A) A simple physical interpretation that fits the probabilistic prediction... even if it doesn't quite explain everything.


B) An "article of faith" that requires an almost complete rejection of common sense, determinism, and the very physical reality of matter itself, adds some mysterious mechanisms that might make copies of the entire universe, except for one small deviation -- probably billions (or way, way, way more) of times per second -- squared, (e.g. accelerating since the beginning of time itself) because every iteration adds more universes that must now split again! (Ignore that pesky theory about not being able to create mass from nothing -- QM is much more powerful than God -- He supposedly only created ONE universe... QM has created untold googolplexes of new universes in the time you've read this... and in some of them this comment doesn't even have any typos. ;-)

Or at very least, the "standard (Copenhagen) interpretation" requires the idea that the entire universe exists in some sort of "quasi" state until "observed. (Whatever the hell that means... Recorded by a computer? Photographed? Observed by a garden slug? Or a human? Or maybe God Himself needs to observe the universe before it can exist. (Just try to get a straight answer to that from a true QM believer.) [You do know that Schrodinger was making fun of this interpretation with his "cat" -- which has now become a new "article of faith" for QM -- he must be spinning (+/- 1/2, of course) in his grave.]

The clear answer is, of course, "B". How else do you think we can be arrogant sanctimonious assholes if the common man might be able to claim to understand basic physics. Not to mention, this gives us a good excuse to persecute those heretical unbelievers as backwards racist redneck morons who couldn't spell "physics" without an "f". (Plus, it makes a great (but *way* overused) plot device for Science Fiction -- everything is the same as the universe you know, but in *this* universe, Abraham Lincoln shot John Wilkes Booth, causing....)

(From which, of course, it follows that there is *some* universe in which arrogant physics prigs are actually human and can rationally discuss alternatives to their "theories" without resorting to name calling and insults.) (But not this one, of course... soon to be demonstrated below. ;-)


Author Timothy Alvis ( ago)
I'm fine with either one, just tell me which one is right.

Author DonCorleoneQ8 ( ago)
One word will destroy this analogy.

Author Nettles' Cats ( ago)
But isn't there a big difference in the way subatomic particles and molecules move?

Author Tom DUPUIS ( ago)
You do not pronounce his name "Broglie" you pronounce it "Breuil" in French , type it on Google translate speaking system you will see it is different 😉

Author Azam Khan ( ago)
This is a good representation of the double-slit experiment. But even after observing which slit the drop goes through the wave function does no collapse

Author patrick oviatt ( ago)
hmmm... this doesn't explain the lack of interference patterns when detectors are used on the photon and electron experiments, though. If pilot wave theory is accurate, then that needs to be addressed, I think. Don't get me wrong, I still love this video, it's an awesome visualization aid for wave interference, and particle interference with it's own wave.

Author Tyler Mauldin ( ago)
What a beautiful video! Thank you for this! :D

Author aanchal singla ( ago)
Before this video, I was a die-hard Copenhagen interpretation believer. It's a very fascinating and surreal way of looking at things, but this was so incredibly well put. Pilot wave theory is finally clear to me
How does this explain the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment??
(Not that Copenhagen does that very well)
It just keeps boggling up my mind. It would be really awesome if you could expand on that one area

Author Lew Sheen ( ago)
I have to admit that I'm in awe of most of the discussion below. It gives me hope for the future that, as a post-drumpf-election American citizen, there are SO MANY inquisitive and knowledgeable people out there!

Anyway: As far as I understand Quantum Electro-Dynamics (QED), all leptons are just 'disturbances' in their own unique and universal quantum fields. For example - the phenomena we measure as 'electrons' are just 'bumps' in a single, continuous, universe-spanning 'quantum electron field'. This seems to explain entanglement - the apparent FTL communication of information is in fact nothing more than a contiguous field reacting INSTANTLY, AS A WHOLE, to a stimulus. Alain Aspect proved that non-locality is a true and valid charactristic of our universe, information CAN travel FTL between entangled particles, and QED suggests this result.

So DeBroglie-Bohm Pilot Wave Theory requires something to be 'waving' and interacting with the particles we observe... Couldn't that 'something' the relevant QED lepton field?

Author Fourth-Dimensional Quasar ( ago)
Pilot-wave theory was discredited not because a different interpretation won, but because it couldn't properly explain what was observed. The Copenhagen theory is fine for some things, but even as far back as Schrodinger we knew there was more to it. Our current understanding of quantum mechanics is not perfect, but going backward to less complex models with one fifteenth the explanatory power isn't going to help us. Whether the answer is in a unified field theory, quantum gravity or what have you, there isn't really much purpose in dwelling on old mechanics from the classical era. We have quantum mechanics because that stuff just doesn't work.

Author mrdave2112 ( ago)
Is quantum mechanics real or imaginative? Never mind. That is not a clear question in and of itself.

Author Wanderer - ( ago)
F@#$ YES! I saw something like this, same experiment, big aquarium with water and ultrasound and water drop walking through double-slit. Tried to find it after a while, to refresh knowledge, but failed. And now acidently i found this video! Awesome!

Author azqwsexdrcftvgybhunj ( ago)
Can't this be simpler . I am just 12 . Still struggling to understand whats going on.

Author Plaar ( ago)
How does the pilot wave theory explain the collapse of the wave function where the interference pattern disappears after measurement?

Author K_ Ralph ( ago)
Pretty sick how a photon moves at the fastest possible speed while its bouncing arround like it doesent know where to go. Imagine it would just move straight forward! :)

Author valon dedalus ( ago)
This did sound logical. Question though? Whereas electrons exist in a "3 dimensional" space, the behavior of the droplet and wave "analogy" is taking place in a "semi" 2 dimensional plane. I see that the results of the latter elegantly explain the former, but could it be that it is just that, "an elegant coincidence"?

Author David LEE ( ago)
i dont think life is randomly created but can behave randomly

Author jordan fink ( ago)
i thought that standing waves were waves that don't move up and down.

Author Zena O'Brien ( ago)
I prefer Pilot Wave Theory myself. The Copenhagen Interpretation seems paradoxical to me and I don't like it. There could always be a new better theory that comes along though.

Author NGC6144 ( ago)
How is it that interference i.e. detection destroys the pilot wave but the particle-wave keeps on going? Back to Copenhagen.

Author Bill Swingle ( ago)
Consider looking into solitons.

Author Ruud Loeffen ( ago)
I think that the Pilot Wave theory is the beginning of understanding a long range of physic phenomena, especially with the help of fluid dynamics, that will guide scientists to understand unsolved mysteries like gravitation, motion of planets and the universal space-time. Thanks to seeking elements of truth in stead of mysterious behavior of unknown phenomena.

Author Can Acz ( ago)

Author smarter1004 ( ago)

Author Jason Park ( ago)
I wish I could be in a superposition of eating pizza and drinking coke at the same time

Author Александр Лосев ( ago)
I have not read all comments. I apologize if this is someone asked. What about a violation of Bell's inequality? It says that probabilistic interpretation is correct. It is necessary to think... Anyway, the analogy is simply gorgeous!

Author GESTROW ( ago)
No dude u got it wrong, the universe is a digital simulation, we're in the matrix and we need to get woke

Author davidbennett60 ( ago)
I kind of get it, but how do they send out just one electron at a time?

Author Olli Laitila ( ago)
maybe objects or points are doing these waves on the space, known ass gravitation waves. and it can move little mass objects like the way we see here. This sounds much more believable than possibility wave because there is an example on this world about it.

Author Joe McKeown ( ago)
How do I build this rig so I can show my friends?!

Author Vrtra Asura ( ago)
that droplet doesn't look like a zombie to me.

Author Sebastian Gil ( ago)
So it was precisely this very system that motivated the work of my undergraduate thesis. I meant to obtain a theoretical analytic model for the motion of the droplets. This is *notoriously* difficult because the conditions dictating the next bounce of the drop are consequent on the droplet's previous interaction with its environment -- the pilot wave propagating through the water bath. My research led me to examining systems with memory, which are best represented through inverse power laws and non-local theories. The interested reader would like to know that systems with memory are a key feature in the intersection of two very fascinating yet obscure (to physics) branches of mathematics: fractal geometry and the theory of fractional calculus.

Thank you so much for making this video. You've just motivated me to dig up my equations and double my efforts :')

P.S. Copenhagen absolutely sucks. It doesn't even make any attempts at realism. Pilot Wave is not without problems, namely the abandoning of locality, but it still is the only hidden variables theory that passes the Bell's Inequality test. But of course, there is also the mechanism of decoherence to be considered.

Author Eduardo A. Chongkan Líos ( ago)

If the photons shooted individually were bouncing and landing in a wave pattern, why does a laser stays focused in a single point?

Is the shooting of an individual photon different from a stream shooted by a laser?

Author Uriah Siner ( ago)
And as always, thanks for watching

Author Abhijeet Singh Parmar ( ago)
I m still with Copenhagen interpretation.

Author Brennan McCloskey ( ago)
Any Nuka Cola Quantum I can have?

Author For the Hunt ( ago)
Being a regular mortal ignoramus, I vote Copenhagen because it feels right. My intuition (which, admittedly, has little to no place in modern physics) doesn't like waves running around on their own, it feels too much like they need some sort of aether.

Also Many Worlds feels good, so I enjoy entertaining the idea regardless of plausibility.

Author Lalith Samanthapuri ( ago)
Does TIME MACHINE exists.
If you don't mind,I need a brief explanation...?????

Author Cristian Wade ( ago)
Veritasium are you a light worker???

Author Joshua Trahan ( ago)
Why has this not taken over the damn quantum conversation.

Author qayoom jalal ( ago)
Particles move about on a magic carpet of waves......hahaha

Author TwistedLemniscate ( ago)
"It comes down to what you're comfortable with."

Yeah, sure, just like how when giving a choice between poison for supper or food for supper I choose food because I'm more comfortable with it. It has nothing to do with the fact that it's idiocy to choose poison.

The Copenhagen interpretation is idealist, whereas the Bohmian one is realist. Which quote below looks more poisonous?

Quote from Copenhagen Physicist:
"We now know that the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks."

Quote from Bohmian (e.g. Pilot-Wave Theory) Physicist:
"One wants to be able to take a realistic view of the world, to talk about the world as if it
is really there, even when it is not being observed. I certainly believe in a world that was
here before me, and will be here after me, and I believe that you are part of it! And I believe
that most physicists take this point of view when they are being pushed into a corner by

Author Andrew Field ( ago)
For the mind to be able to obtain a grasp of what may sort of be going on is brilliant. Information is supposed not to be able to travel faster than light so do you think the standing wave can send out and receive information to guide a photon?

Author Ronald Rebolledo ( ago)
Pilot wave because the other theory is BS

Author Christian Fieldhouse ( ago)
Unless you are a physicist, there's no rational reason to believe anything other than the most widely accepted models of QM. (If you have a good reason, go get a nobel prize)

Author Quantum ( ago)

Author 4 E ( ago)
does that mean that subatomic particles produce wave in space , gravitational waves maybe

Author Ant Powell ( ago)
I can't see any inconsistency between this and quantum field theory. I don't see why the topography of the field shouldn't adopt values that reflect this model.

Author Deep Blue ( ago)
Oh yes that makes sense

Author Nicolas Duguay ( ago)
Very nice!
I prefer to have an agnostic approach: "I don't know and it is ok!"
Copenhagen interpretation can be true and the pilot wave interpretation can as well, both are possible and we do not know wich reflect reality best.
I wonder how many other people are struggling to be comfortable with "not knowing" while still letting them drive by their scientific curiosity!

Author sfg911 ( ago)
I wan to make a pilot wave tank like this. Are there any instructions or guides on how to make this?

Author Throttle Kitty ( ago)
I've always felt the "pilot wave" is an underlying force of our universe we don't understand yet that drives basically every thing about the universe that isn't related to particles. (gravity, dark matter, dark energy) Our current understanding of particles Is not wrong at all, it's actually a totally separate half to the universe that the particles just interact with.

Author Adrian Holguin ( ago)
I like the pilot wave theorie.

Author Pepins Spot ( ago)
It is definitely more intuitive. It's a great illustration.

Author Samar Ali Warsi ( ago)
I think De Broglie is pronounced like 'De Broy' and not 'De Brolee'

Author Euryale Music ( ago)
I always thought there was something suspicious about the 2-slit -experiment I didn`t believe in, and this explanation fits exactly what my LOGICAL brain wanted to tell me all along, so no more "SPOOKY ACTION AT A DISTANCE!", so once again Einstein was right.

Author DocThorium ( ago)
How would this explain how the "waviness" of the double slit experiment collapses if you observe which slit the particle passes through?

Author João Daveiro ( ago)
Thanks dereck. Why cant you test the wave of one particle interact with other particles. so you can test the influence of the wave in the particle.

Author JOHN MUA ( ago)
Wrinkles in One's brain....

Author romain julien ( ago)
Pourquoi mettre une description en français si aucun sous titre fr n'est disponible ?
Parce que vous êtes con.

Author Físico Nuclear Cuántico ( ago)
Vibrational frequency.

Author The Sethioz Project ( ago)
bit offtopic, but has anyone noticed that small particles work and act just like entire universe? just like electrons orbit around the core, planets orbit around the sun .. and solar systems orbit around some bigger systems and galaxies orbit around something too.

Author Miguel Rivera ( ago)
pretty darn cool!

Author Robin Kirkpatrick ( ago)
Piot all the way!! Thanks for the great video!

Author MichaelSilverChannel ( ago)
Asking which one you like assumes that reality has one preferred way. I think the thing we call a particle exists in many places at once as a probability and is collapsed upon being observed or striking the screen.

Author ThimbleStudios ( ago)
This analogy is one of the best visuals I have ever seen which illustrates quantum particle/wave characteristic's behavior. Now, if we could just figure out how and what specific density that allows particles to emanate "waves" which interfere with themselves, and create "walkers" we could begin to predict behavior of particles the same way a Rubic Cube speed runner looks at a Rubics Cube.

Author tjperez69 ( ago)
So...they didn't come up with THIS theory first instead of the superposition one?

Author Ghazi Bousselmi ( ago)
Dude, thanks a lot for this video !! I am not a physicist, but like many, the Copenhagen interpretation always bothered me. I think the wave function is a powerful mathematical tool to calculate probabilities; but should only be taken as that, a probability calculation tool, which by definition would encompass all possible states & paths (etc...), but that should not be extended to the interpretation of the physical reality of the underlying phenomena (the electrons passing through both slits, or not having a definite position).
I was trying to explain the double slit experiment by the electromagnetic interaction of the moving particles with the particles of the slit walls, and/or their own electromagnetic waves they create while moving (that also travel through the slits, resulting in classical wave interference) and with that post-slit wave interference.

Wonderful analogy !

Physicists : any inspired enough to vindicate Einstein's skepticism :) ?

Author Jon Deal ( ago)
it's too beautiful to not be right

Author Matthew Bosley ( ago)
The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment falsifies this theory.

Author NUKE ( ago)
+Veritasium. I remember years back, when once made a search on youtube about explanations of QM, and there was this guy who had a video with the exact experiment like yours. I might even find these videos to prove my statement by showing the date they have been uploaded. Anyhow, I jumped out of my chair when I saw the thumbnail of this video : ) Because I knew what I was about to see! Really cool stuff! Keep it up!

Author Emociones y Vida ( ago)
Great info man. Way to go

Author Simon Wirth ( ago)
If you wanna make more experiments with loudspekers to get the vibration on a surface, you could use the KingKong (edit: the speaker is called KX-1, i've had something other in my head...) from Ompere. It's a flexural wave converter. Here's how it work's: what you need is a surface where you can let it stand on, with the vibration's that are created from the speaker, you use the shape and the material of the object you've put the speaker on as resonance body. Different shape's and different material's add a little difference between the clarity and precision of a frequency. It's fun to experiment with this speaker on different object's, if you add a with water filled bowl to the speaker, you can see a lot of pattern's in the water depending on the frequency you put in the speaker ;)

Author MrCrinco ( ago)
If the frequency of sound used to bounce the droplets was played with, maybe you could find a perfect frequency to match the waves of the droplets to the waves of an electron if scaled correctly. No idea what that would help with, but just a thought lol

Author Toka Arbnore ( ago)
Seems legit!

Author ChrisKadaver ( ago)
Is it possible that a quantum computer would be impossible, even in theory? What would you say is the probability for it to being able to exist, and what speaks against it?

Author Udey Chowdhury ( ago)
really good -thanks

Author George Gitonga ( ago)
Why is it that people can't discuss anything without taking sides between religion and science. You will all be surprised to learn that religion and science are two sides of the same will talk of parallel dimension while religion will talk of your spirit and soul, science will talk about non-matter dimensions while religion will emphasize on the spiritual world, science will talk about multiverses and religion will talk of another life after death, religion will talk of earth's creation from nothing(bible) and science will talk of dark energy and dark matter and creation of matter from nothing. Science will always emphasize on existence of a greater form of energy or power i.e dark energy and religion will emphasize existence of God.What does this tell us? none of the two is wrong. The only difference is that religion claims different lines of thought and science proves those lines of thoughts.This will always be the cycle or trend until religion and science intercept or find a locus point. The question should be, What lies beyond the locus point? This is the missing piece of the puzzle Albert Einstein did not oversee in the Einstein's God Model.

Author jj tj ( ago)
I really strongly support this theory, and I make a simple model that the quantum particles in the three-dimensional are the “intercepted thing” of the four-dimensional, so every weird Quantum Mechanics can have a clear explanation。 BUT,I still can not make a model to explain why all the Quantum waves and waves , not to stop having an end peace.

Author Tzali Maimon ( ago)
Why think that the Pilot Wave is undetectable?
Think of all waves as bending of space. Gravitational, electromagnetic, pilot...
What do you see then?

Author Salvador Zapata López ( ago)
Ojalá fueras mi vecino

Author moataz elkhateeb ( ago)
wow amazing .. well done

Author CounterCuckooClockWit ( ago)
How would the pilot wave theory explain the collapse of the wavefunction upon observing whether the particle goes through slit 1 or slit 2? Would this hypothetical physical wave (physical what, btw? aether?) disappear instantly for some reason? if so, it seems as though the method of observation interacts with the wave and cancels it out, however this does NOT explain the results of the quantum eraser delayed choice experiment where a later measurement of an entangled particle determines whether this pilot wave would or would not have existed. Unless there's some explanation around how a future event can cause a past physical object (the pilot wave) to be cancelled out, then it seems clear that the pilot wave theory is fundamentally at odds with our intuitive sense of the direction of causality and with relativity and most other areas of physics.
  In terms of other interpretations applied to this experiment my own view is that the results have something to do with knot theory in quantum mechanics - a concept first introduced by Finkelstein to explain fermion behaviour. rather than thinking of a world that is composed of particles we can think instead of a world that is composed of knots that exist as a topology in space-time. So, for example, instead of having 2 particles -an electron and positron, say - that form and then annihilate one another, what you have is a ring that exists in the geometry of space-time. Instead of four similar particles that form and then annihilate (with two swopping places necessarily requiring another to perform a 2pi spin) we have the same ring but twisted like a figure eight but with a twist in one of its sides. Seeing the experiment in a similar vein to this, looking at the entangled photons as one spatio-temporal entity, we can suppose that only certain shapes are allowed, which explains why what happens to one entangled photon - even if it is in 'our' future - necessitates some behaviour by the other even if it is at an earlier instant, because they are both, in fact, one entity.
  This doesn't explain superposition, but what if we see superposition as a grouping of these different spatio-temporal 'knots' that span a dimension that we cannot observe. And the state of superposition is itself in a state of 'superposition', in the case of the quantum eraser delayed choice experiment, through another dimension where there are three states - one where the particle is observed to go through slit 1, another where the particle is observed to go through slit 2, and yet another where the particle is unobserved and therefore exists in a state of 'proper' superposition. Only the observable universe maintains the law of conservation for energy, which is why when our environment makes a measurement or interacts with the particle in superposition, the wavefn collapses, and only one particle appears, although the other particles (or spatio-temporal 'knots' as I should say but its easier to use 'particle' terminology when speaking from our perspective) will still exist separate from our observable universe.
  Correct me if i'm wrong please.

Author Shirish Jadav ( ago)
this universe is its self a 2 competing theory experiment .. :P

Author DavidGX ( ago)
I've always felt like there must be some kind of rhyme and reason to quantum mechanics, we just don't know enough about the universe to understand it well enough. But, I'm not physicist so... I dunno.

Author cool_mind ( ago)
Reality is deterministically undetermined and indeterminately deterministic.

Author Joe Deglman ( ago)
I think people confuse light with photons. Light is a transverse and spherical wave of ether or energy that travels away from a heat or energy source, like a candle flame, such as Thomas Young used for his double-slit experiment.  A photon is purely a particle that creates light.  A photon creates light in two ways. 1.) a longitudinal spherical wave it creates as the ether repels around the traveling photon,  we see it as an interference pattern like in the double-slit experiment, and  2. a transverse spherical wave that travels away from the point of impact of the photon which is an an energy source. The same is true with other charged particle as electron, they create a wave in the ether as they travel.  The interference pattern disappears when you try to detect  the photon, because the detector refocuses the wave in the ether.

Author Human Man ( ago)
I think that once we become comfortable with science is when it slaps us in the face. Neither of these interpretations care what we are "comfortable" with. They do what they do, it is a nice way to visualize how it works but until we discover exactly what is happening rationalizing it without evidence is not as important than finding out what IS happening. We might never discover that.

Author Don O ( ago)
That's it! QT debunk. Einstein was right.

Author David Caywood ( ago)
Can't the pilot wave be a probability wave?

Embed Video:


Search Video

Top Videos


Analyse website