19
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + +
Talk:Quantum mechanics (view source)
Revision as of 22:49, December 9, 2009
, 22:49, December 9, 2009no edit summary
I edited the Collapse of the Wave Function segment. I found it offensively wrong in many respects. I understand there is a need to make certain things "accessible" to people. However there is more of a need to present truthful information regardless of its accessibility. I do not post anything that I could not back up with sources. If you feel the need to change what I say make sure that you know what you're talking about because as it stands right now the "corrected" version of the segment has almost no value of worth. The explanation of a wave function ONLY occurs in a special example. I decided to take a look at this website after seeing it aired on the "Colbert Report" and am offended at the lack of some information, and the bastardization of what was once truthful information. Honestly you should not even begin to think to alter this page if you have not taken a course in Quantum that was taught by a PhD. in the field. [[User:Swifty|Swifty]]
I have reinstated the change that had been made by Ssandoval, regarding the removal of "first order kinetics". It's true that he was an obvious vandal in other pages (yes, I looked around). It's also true that calling it an "idiotic implication" was excessive, and that his next "sentence" had no verb and contained a reference to a "negative amount" that I can't figure out. However, the chemical concept of "first order kinetics" isn't applicable here. Not idiotic, but wrong nonetheless. First order kinetics refers to a reaction rate ''per unit volume'' being proportional to the ''concentration'' of the reactants. In radioactivity the rate depends only on the amount of material. The exponential decay nevertheless follows.
I have reinstated the change that had been made by Ssandoval, regarding the removal of "first order kinetics". It's true that he was an obvious vandal in other pages (yes, I looked around). It's also true that calling it an "idiotic implication" was excessive, and that his next "sentence" had no verb and contained a reference to a "negative amount" that I can't figure out. However, the chemical concept of "first order kinetics" isn't applicable here. Not idiotic, but wrong nonetheless. First order kinetics refers to a reaction rate ''per unit volume'' being proportional to the ''concentration'' of the reactants. In radioactivity the rate depends only on the amount of material. The exponential decay nevertheless follows.