I answered a question about integrals on reddit today. It looked fancy but I saw that an odd function meant the whole left half was obfuscation. Solutions are when it isn't manipulating symbols, you can straight up see the concepts at play.
-
-
You mean that QM, the way it currently is, doesn’t makes sense to you? I’m sure it makes sense to some people
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
I'm sure it would make sense to me as well if I had the opportunity to take the classes instead of learning on youtube and wikipedia. I'm a crackpot who sees an elite caste guarded by nomenclature who assumes the confusion is malicious instead of intrinsic and necessary.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Here’s an alternative perspective: instead of trying to fit explanations into an intuitive framework, you can start with a set of axioms (regardless of intuition) and try to explain the world. The theory with the least number of axioms and most accurate description “wins”
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @vi_ne_te, @JasonHise64 ja
Which happens to be QM. The next step would be matching concepts from the theory to human concepts, the extent to which that works is debatable.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä -
I can be sold on QFT. QM is statistics as axioms and that's a harder sell.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
I don’t see any difference in the concepts involved. It’s just where you start classically: Point particle mechanics -> (traditional, single particle) QM Field theory -> QFT
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Then maybe we can argue about points. I think everything goes off the rails when we assume there are such places where we divide by zero.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Fair enough, but the weirdness of QM that is not due to point particles completely transfers to QFT
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Quantum means discrete instead of continuous and I'm curious to know more sources from which that constraint can stem.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys
The most common way is the quantum harmonic oscillator, and I have no intuitive explanation for it
-
-
Let me try to bridge the gap - I've seen this start with an infinite well, and you have to start with a single central up and down between the two adjacent walls
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @JasonHise64, @vi_ne_te ja
that's your planck. And somehow your length
0 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.