Free Video Games that teach Quantum Mechanics -- We tried them for you!

Glad you put the quantum class in Brilliant, I hope more to come !

Outer Wilds explained it for me and inspired me to start work on a project that uses quantum mechanics.

I learned from this video that quantum mechanics don't work well as game mechanics

great video. I like this friendly approach to showcasing some quantum mechanics games. I saw a video about quantum games that was a bit condescending saying games can be a waste of time and instead you'd be learning or upgrading your mind beforehand with some learning games, and it had slightly bad design ideas. So I'm pleasantly surprised I enjoyed this video a lot. Upvoted and subscribed

"you can play the game without any knowledge of qubits, or any understanding of what the game is trying to represent."
Isn't this what most QM scientists have done historically? Avoid explanations & understanding and focusing on being quiet and calculating? :)

Very cool, thank you, Sabine.. Brilliant looks like an interesting investment for anyone with high-school students in family. These games are wicked; could you suggest [perhaps a review video] of such games which are introductory for younger minds? 🧡

I wonder whether you are planning to make a similar video about relativistic games? There are some classics, and also our new game "Relative Hell" shows de Sitter and anti-de Sitter space.

Hyperbolica by CodeParade !
Not quantum per-se, by in hyperbolic geometry. He wrote the engine for it from scratch to operate in real hyperbolic topographical space

Is there a scientific definition for observing?

In order to calculate Poynting's vector in Excel VBA we can just write

Set P = Vcross(E,B)

where P, E and B are all defined as vectors. We need a class module called Vector with this as its contents:

Public x As Double
Public y As Double
Public z As Double

assuming that the internal implementation of a vector is in Cartesian co-ordinates, which is not to be taken
for granted.

We need a second ordinary module with functions like

Public Function Vcross(ByVal a As Vector, ByVal b As Vector) As Vector
Dim c As New Vector
c.z = a.x * b.y - a.y * b.x
c.x = a.y * b.z - a.z * b.y
c.y = a.z * b.x - a.x * b.z
Set Vcross = c
End Function

I hope that the reader can guess what this function does even without much knowledge of any specific
programming language.

In the class module we may also place unary functions or operators, while in the ordinary module we may put
other binary operations. The point is that two modules are required, at least in VBA.

Once this is set up, the sky's the limit. We can do computer simulations of all sorts of things, and then
distribute them for free on the Internet. I think every home should have a computer simulation of the
Dirac equation. It's easy with this approach.

This posting is an exercise just to see what we can do with new technology. I am quite surprised to see what
can actually be done. I was expecting failure. This was composed in Microsoft NotePad and then copied
and pasted in.

I am a physicist that worked at CERN. For the few smart persons that might exist on such materialistic mumbo-jumbo channel, I recommend my papers about consciousness, like for example "Meaning and Context: A Brief Introduction".

Thank you, Sabine... God, I wish my girlfriend was smart, witty, and sexy like you.

Ok. Seriously there had better be a game with a playable Schrodinger's Cat...

No what weird I been having day daems about Me that I could feel sounds like galaxies exploding in space like some is wrong and it was Wong me something is not right I keep feeling this it scary

I love her small perky tits.

No way I will loose a single second on this rubbish.

Keys that change place the second time you look at them? This happens with real car keys too

You know what is the biggest game player ever...mum, you want to know right? It's that stuff which y'all have called "dark matter/dark energy. It hate flatness and is totally addicted to CHAOS...😂🤣😂, otherwise f'n selfish.

Coolness, Dr. Sabine.
Thank you. God bless you.

Thanks. Guess - So quantum is a low level probability distribution generator.

​Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability:
​
A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.)

Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness.

A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.

Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)

Social media seem to have taken on board Copenhagen quantum mechanics. "We need to keep people watching our platforms, those wave functions aren't going to collapse themselves!".

Thanks, this is great, I've been playing quantum flytrap, glad for other quantum mechanics games. Thanks again

Quantum chess

Outer Wilds plays with quantum physics, and also has a great narrative.

Is quantum mechanics the basis of all randomness?

One day Sabine will get around to the Born Rule, the Muon g-2 anomaly, whether the Universe is really accelerating [ the update ], and things like derivatives, which even I, no expert, have spoken about, the virial, and the calculus of variations. Oh, and Ronald Fisher's work.
Was Newton right to take the tangent to zero [ zero doesn't exist ] or infinity in the other direction? I've also talked about taking an external force field for an internal energy, as Lagrange and Hamilton do.
Reply.....silence. That's very Wittgenstein.

I'm not qualified to go into path integrals and field integrals, only to say it's just another physicist correspondence "trick."
in quantum mechanics, physical quantities can be expressed as averages over all possible paths weighted by the exponential of a term proportional to the ratio of the classical action S associated to each path, divided by the Planck's constant, hbar.
Brownian motion paths satisfy a Hölder condition of order 1/2, i.e. Brownian paths are continuous but not differentiable and, thus, not defined. So far , so good.
There is not a single Lagrangian for defining a LAP ( Least Action Principle ) with vanishing first variation. There is only limited application to some special systems and frictions; the Lagrangian isn't unique, their's a lack of energy connection of the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian, and we lose the optimal character of action in general.
So I suppose a quantum path integral correspondence is a useful tool. However it takes us to the absurdity of infinite trajectories just to get us to the probability amplitude. And now we're on to the Born Rule, the probability density of finding a particle at a given point, when measured, as proportional to the square of the magnitude of the particle's wavefunction at that point.
This is Sabine's terrortory, if she ever gets around to it.

The simplest alternative hypothesis of quantum mechanics just says that for objects heavier than the Planck mass, we can throw away the Schroedinger equation and replace it with classical Brownian motion on the same scale. This is not one for intellectuals, but it can be set up as a computer simulation. We should dish out comparative computer simulations of the Schroedinger and Dirac equations based upon this hypothesis, and invite everyone to see if they can think of something better. Let them be able to modify the source code as they wish. This is close to being feasible right now, and it is being done for the motion of an electron in a dipole magnetic field (i.e. the Van Allen belt). The hypothesis has something in common with ideas about decoherence. My own proposal for a better hypothesis involves tachyonic Brownian motion, but let's give everyone a chance.

Please also review some relativistic games, such as "A slower speed of light" by MIT game lab.

Received wisdom has it that nothing can travel faster than light. I say the rules of the game are different when we are looking at random phenomena. Tachyonic Newtonian motion may be impossible, but tachyonic Brownian motion is OK. We could do with lots of simulations of themes in Special Relativity which enable everyone to follow the arguments. I have written stuff myself in QBasic, but then Microsoft withdrew it. Java doesn't appeal as the replacement because of the weird syntax. I am currently advocating Excel VBA but am open to suggestions. You can download a spreadsheet almost as a physical object. Instructions can be put on some pages, and a VBA program can be included, with the user being able to modify the source code if desired. VBA can support physics-friendly object-oriented programming. I do graphics by the method of shrinking each Excel cell to pixel size and then colouring them in. No doubt we can do better than this. An animation can be generated over lots of pages of the spreadsheet, and we can then switch between them rapidly to see motion.

Sabine, WEBB images are a ^ up to logic. How can galaxies be FULLY shaped in only 600 mls years?

It isn't designed to teach about quantum physics, but there is a quantum version of baduk, the board game also known as "go". In normal go, when it is a player's turn, the player places one stone onto the board. In quantum go, a player with the move places two stones onto the board. These stones are "entangled". Later, when another move is made, if a stone is placed next to an entangled stone, the state of the entangled stones is detected, and one of the two is removed at random.

Since Gell-Mann, physicists think neutrinos oscillate on their way from the Sun, the small electron somehow oscillating with the large tau, 7 million times heavier [ and the inbetween muon neutrino, of course ].
This absurdity is compounded by thinking a particle can slice through matter like a knife through butter, when the lighter photon can do no such thing. Think again, mainstreamers.
By the way, the photon isn't the guage carrier of the E/M field. It's the charge. I might be contradicting myself, but it isn't a wave field but a spun field. The wavelength is just the radius of spin of the photon, which is stretched out by the motion of the particle, the times c"2. Since the photon can't go faster than light speed, it has no choice but to stack off-centre, making the heavier particles, electrons, muons, etc.
I may be wrong; but that makes more sense than the unseen quark zoo the mainstream is handing out, together with gluons, hadronisation and Higgs bosons, which have to be at least dualled to make sense. Oh, the Horror! The Horror!

Could a photon be like a bulge of energy on the crest of a wave carrying it. As the wave hits the slit, the bulge on the wave dissipates it's energy causing smaller bulges in subsequent waves, hence diffused light on the photographic film behind the 2 slits. Is the intensity of the image the photon leaves on the photo graphic film behind the slit less if there are 2 slits?

Least Action or All Action?
I'd like to get into infinite seas of positrons and QFT, WHICH TALKS IN TERMS OF the sums of creation and annihilation operators; but I don't want to get into infinite vacuum energy and infinite charge density. [ QFT HAS TO USE AN ARBRITARY CUT-OFF ]
The particles are probably buoyed, as they bob up and down, or round and round, on the wave field, in line with good ol' Newton's Inverse Cube Law. A pilot light wave particle or quantum steering are alternatives. I'll stick with Newton.

When they talk, physicists, of Quantum Mecahanics, I suppose they mean things like 1/ Complementarity, 2/ Decoherence, 3/ Non-locality, 4/ the Quantum or discrete state, 5/ Superposition, 6/ Tunnelling, 7/ Uncertainty and 8/ the Wave function.
We can rule out all but 4/ and 7/. And 7/ doesn't work, the Heisenberg Uncertainty, if you only have one position to measure velocity.
Calling it mechanics is a joke, since it's anything but. tHEY USE SOMETHING LIKe
|Ψ,t\ = 1/√2|1,V\|2,V\ + 1/√2|1,H\|2,H\,
the wavefunction as a composition of vertical V and horizontal H polarization probabilities. But that by itself ignores the necessary symmetry, the reverse spin. The games these mystics play, heading us headfirst up the garden path of dalliance for the last 122 years.

Wow!

Is the Mpemba effect of any interest?

Butterfly effect

Quite Frankly a good idea! I haven’t played any one of them, but al help due to this weirdness can’t be bad 😊 so really

games mean money, lots of it. and enough to fund more work on QM

There's this idea, popularized by Leonard Susskind, among others, that gravity somehow emerges from quantum entanglement. Has Sabine or another science communicator ever taken a critical look at this topic?

Is this a joke?

I would love to see some downloadable ray-tracing software with access to the source code so we can see some gravitational lensing and how to calculate it. Definitely not my speciality, but it can be done. I have just been looking at the first JWT picture. Congratulations NASA !