19
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Quantum mechanics (view source)
Revision as of 23:24, December 9, 2009
, 23:24, December 9, 2009→Wave Function
:And if you just think the organization can be improved, or there's more stuff we need to talk about, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I came to this website a month and a half ago myself, and I'm still shocked by how much ground we still have to cover. Please help us improve! --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:01, 9 December 2009 (EST)
:And if you just think the organization can be improved, or there's more stuff we need to talk about, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I came to this website a month and a half ago myself, and I'm still shocked by how much ground we still have to cover. Please help us improve! --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:01, 9 December 2009 (EST)
No problem. To start with you said that the particles move randomly. We don't know that. Part of current debate in quantum is whether the theory we have no complete or not. As you can imagine it isn't easily accepted that we "just can't know" the position of the particle so many people claim that as of now, quantum is incomplete. If this is so then it might not be that particles move randomly, they just move in a way we cannot explain. This mistake isn't so much an error in knowledge as much as it is too bold of a statement to make.
In your next sentence, its not that the position isn't described as a point, but that it is meaningless to say it as such. This is an important distinction to make. If it just isn't described that way but has meaning, then it COULD be described that way but for reasons unknown to the reader, it isn't. If it is a meaningless value then there is no point in talking about it as such. It is imperative to explain why things are the way they and not just say "oh well its not done that way" WHY IS IT SO? (most important thing you can ask yourself as you write your thesis)
I don't have much of a problem with your description of the wave function presented, I feel it would be much more useful to talk about the particle in a box problem as it is a good introductory point for the subject.
I don't really like the way you say "jumps". In my mind it implies that "it was hear but now its way over there". All this wave function is telling you is that if you look everywhere you will find the particle.
The wave function is a prediction of averages. In other words, (disregarding collapsing) if you measured the particle's position an infinite number of times, you would find that 99% of the time it would be in that two angstrom range while the other 1 percent of the time its elsewhere. The particle doesn't "jump" it just wasn't where you would have expected to find it.
The collapsing of the wave function is a consequence of measurement, not the reason for it. It mearly says, if you measure it then you know about where the particle is, so if you measured it again immediately it would be around that location. Once again it doesn't "jump" away on its own. In fact if you continuously measure the particle with very little time between measurements the wave function will stay collapsed as long as you're measuring.
Your final statement is a bit redundant and a little not true. I explained why the wave function collapses. However saying how it will collapse before measurement is about the same as saying "the particle is right here" its meaningless.
Keep in mind that I am a little flustered about all of this because I came from the page on magnetism where they described it as "a component of the electromagnetic force". While a lot of what you said wasn't "wrong" it also wasn't true.
==Older stuff==
==Older stuff==