740
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 19:
Line 19: + + + +
Talk:Quantum mechanics (view source)
Revision as of 23:44, December 9, 2009
, 23:44, December 9, 2009→Wave Function: More meaninglessness, or not? & infinite v. finite boxes
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.
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.
:Thanks for explaining all this. Thanks for reminding me about the difference between "random" and "currently inexplicable", and "we don't do it" v. "it's meaningless," and for explaining about the wavefunction staying collapsed if you measure a short while afterward - I hadn't heard that last point before. I just edited the page to clarify some of what you said and add the example of the particle in a finite box; I'd rather not put it in an infinite box myself as I don't quite remember the math. If you'd like to do that, I'd greatly appreciate it!
:But I don't think your wording that "predicting how and where the wave function will collapse is a meaningless endeavor," is quite accurate. Isn't that the same as "it might not be that particles move randomly, they just move in a way we cannot explain"?
:(By the way, you can automatically sign your posts with four tildas (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>), and indent with a colon at the start of the line.) --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:44, 9 December 2009 (EST)
==Older stuff==
==Older stuff==