19
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 26:
Line 26: + +
Talk:Quantum mechanics (view source)
Revision as of 00:16, December 10, 2009
, 00:16, December 10, 2009no edit summary
I don't think there is much of a reason behind predicting the collapse of a wave function or discussing it. Like I said the collapse of a wave function is a consequence of measurement and as we know measurement changes what we're measuring. So in a way the collapse of a wave function only occurs when you are no longer looking at what you wanted to look at. (I wish there was a better way to say that).
I don't think there is much of a reason behind predicting the collapse of a wave function or discussing it. Like I said the collapse of a wave function is a consequence of measurement and as we know measurement changes what we're measuring. So in a way the collapse of a wave function only occurs when you are no longer looking at what you wanted to look at. (I wish there was a better way to say that).
BTW thanks for the tilda thing I was trying to figure that out. [[User:Swifty|Swifty]] 19:05, 9 December 2009 (EST)
BTW thanks for the tilda thing I was trying to figure that out. [[User:Swifty|Swifty]] 19:05, 9 December 2009 (EST)
Side note, the problem you have presented is not a finite box as the wave function does not look like that for a finite box. The math for a finite box is much more complicated than that for the infinite box. I think you are confusing finite and inifinte with the length of the box instead of the depth of the box. The idea with the infinite box is that there is an infinite potential (or walls) at the side of the box while with the finite box does not have an infinite potential (looks like a well). The problem you seem to have posted is a free particle which is still a difficult problem [[User:Swifty|Swifty]] 19:16, 9 December 2009 (EST)
==Older stuff==
==Older stuff==