« first day (2368 days earlier)      last day (1261 days later) » 

2:31 PM
@AbhasKumarSinha I'm curious too ... Do elaborate?
 
2:46 PM
@MoreAnonymous Schrodinger's equations are incomplete.
 
@AbhasKumarSinha What do they not include?
 
@MoreAnonymous Schrodinger's equation is nothing but the energy conservation thing, which is not complete enough to get state function to get complete description of a system.
 
@AbhasKumarSinha I can use the Hamiltonian in classical mechanics to get the equations of motion
I'm not sure why you say "is not complete enough to get state function to get complete description of a system"
If one wants to know the time evolution in QM one applies the unitary operator to an eigenket (which is normalized)
 
@MoreAnonymous Equations of motion of quantum objects are not Sch Eqn alone.
 
@AbhasKumarSinha Okay what am i missing?
 
2:52 PM
@MoreAnonymous actual equations of motion
 
@AbhasKumarSinha Whats the difference?
@AbhasKumarSinha And what are "actual equations of motion"
 
@MoreAnonymous See in simple words, I disagree Heisenburg's uncertainity stuff.
@MoreAnonymous For Classical Objects, it's Euler's equation, for quantum stuff, it's something not discovered till now.
 
Is it that you like to formulate things in terms of forces
?
because thats also possible with QM
 
I just want that probability/electron density thing to be removed from it.
@MoreAnonymous no, did I said that.
 
@AbhasKumarSinha True I was guessing
 
2:57 PM
$\psi$ is misleading us.
Statistical approach is shit.
 
@AbhasKumarSinha So you want to some how remove $\psi$ ?
 
@MoreAnonymous Yes.
 
@AbhasKumarSinha Well it is useful especially during the measurement
 
@MoreAnonymous Measurement of what/which?
 
@AbhasKumarSinha Measurement of any state
 
2:59 PM
@MoreAnonymous It's a shitty concept, god does not play dice.
@MoreAnonymous Again it's misleading, it doesn't measure any state. It's different.
 
@AbhasKumarSinha Einstien tried and failed too
In general relativity, the Hamilton–Jacobi–Einstein equation (HJEE) or Einstein–Hamilton–Jacobi equation (EHJE) is an equation in the Hamiltonian formulation of geometrodynamics in superspace, cast in the "geometrodynamics era" around the 1960s, by Asher Peres in 1962 and others. It is an attempt to reformulate general relativity in such a way that it resembles quantum theory within a semiclassical approximation, much like the correspondence between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. It is named for Albert Einstein, Carl Gustav Jacob Jacobi, and William Rowan Hamilton. The EHJE contains...
 
@MoreAnonymous Again it's misleading
@MoreAnonymous It's based on assumptions which is misleading people.
@MoreAnonymous But, his approach was correct.
 
Do you have some of your own work? or Equations?
 
@MoreAnonymous no
 
@AbhasKumarSinha Can I ask your level of physics education?
 
3:06 PM
@MoreAnonymous 12th grade high school
 
@AbhasKumarSinha Any plans to do a physics degree?
:)
 
would see
 
Hmm ... Well it's okay I guess. Here's my advice. I had a philosopher friend in uni. We'd often debate in 1st year about things (for fun). However, in fourth year I noticed none of initial depositions (1st year ideas of things) had changed whereas mine had vastly changed. When I asked him this. He conceded it was true. I asked if he thought a university degree was worthwhile. He said for him it was a mistake.

If your worldview isn't changed by your university experience. Then something has gone wrong.
But if you have any interesting references that back your view lemme know?
 
@MoreAnonymous I didn't wanted to go deep, but you are forcing me to.
se...
 
@AbhasKumarSinha isn't that the point of a conversation?
 
3:13 PM
@MoreAnonymous which point?
 
@AbhasKumarSinha "I didn't wanted to go deep, but you are forcing me to." - I thought the point of the conversation was to express one's ideas
 
@MoreAnonymous see, it's long, but, ill try formulating
 
@AbhasKumarSinha Go ahead I'm all ears :)
 
@MoreAnonymous We have quite reliable evidence that electrons have definite orbits,okay?
 
@AbhasKumarSinha Do you mean orbitals ?
 
3:17 PM
@MoreAnonymous Did I say orbitals?
@MoreAnonymous continuous paths, I mean
 
@AbhasKumarSinha umm .. we actually have quite reliable evidence that electrons have definite orbitals
The Bohr model is an approximation
 
@MoreAnonymous I mean not orbits, but continuous path
sorry, not bohr thin
 
@AbhasKumarSinha like a line element?
 
@MoreAnonymous no, curved (yes line element)
 
@AbhasKumarSinha Hmm, I'm not sure I've seen a line element formulation of QM
the closest might be Feynman sum over histories
@AbhasKumarSinha But no, I am not aware of line element formulation for the electron
 
3:21 PM
@MoreAnonymous That's Path Integral way
 
@AbhasKumarSinha Yes
 
@MoreAnonymous Electrons move in Continuous paths, refer, Resnick and Halliday, they have that image of it's path, captured by some lab
 
do you know the page number?
 
@MoreAnonymous wait lemme check, 1 sec
@MoreAnonymous Page 1069
 
Okay one moment I wanna see what they're talking about myself
 
3:26 PM
@MoreAnonymous Bubble Chamber Experiment
 
one moment
 
@MoreAnonymous ok
@MoreAnonymous walker wala
 
I've gort the 10th edition
 
9th edition
 
what's the chapter name?
 
3:29 PM
@MoreAnonymous page number 1069
 
One moment laptop aint behaving :P
 
@MoreAnonymous lol
 
I can see some interference pattern thingy on that page
Hence I asked for the chapter
 
@MoreAnonymous just below that, bottom right corner
@MoreAnonymous this is better one
3
Q: What causes the spirals to be inward in the bubble chamber images?

Maximal Ideal My understanding is that the circular paths are caused by the action of the Lorentz force on the electrons and positrons. However, I'm not sure why the circular paths are going inward. I have two ideas in mind. The first is that this could be caused by drag forces from the atmosphere of the b...

 
3:34 PM
@MoreAnonymous you got that?
 
Ah .. yes bubble chambers (been a while I'd heard of them)
 
@MoreAnonymous There are also wilson chamber experiment too, don't confuse
Also Gas Chamber Experiment, all are different.
2
A: What does it mean "not to have a definite trajectory"?

Martintl,dr: This is really just a verbous synthesis of what has already been said by alanf and CuriousOne with a more basic experiment and theory explanation approach and a smattering of my own limited knowledge. The upshot is the same: trajectories make little sense in nonrelativistic QM and if you...

 
Yes and they rely on scattering to tell you the path ...
 
Great, so, they have definite trajectory, they don't dissapper or just move in thin air.
?
 
The answer says probabilistic trajectories ...
2
A: What does it mean "not to have a definite trajectory"?

Martintl,dr: This is really just a verbous synthesis of what has already been said by alanf and CuriousOne with a more basic experiment and theory explanation approach and a smattering of my own limited knowledge. The upshot is the same: trajectories make little sense in nonrelativistic QM and if you...

 
3:39 PM
@MoreAnonymous That image is truly non probabilistic
 
Yes, but if you repeat the experiment then you'll get a different trajectory .. I think
 
@MoreAnonymous exactly.
@MoreAnonymous But, since it has a definite trajectory, it says that it can always have a equation of motion.
But, the classical approach will not work there, we need additional parameters apart from potential energy and kintetic energy for it's formulations
 
@AbhasKumarSinha Okay. But it must have some element of probability right since the same initial conditions are giving different final conditions
?
Unless we disagree the initial conditions are the same
Also this is a special case of an electron behaving classically
 
@MoreAnonymous no. Then, equations will reduce to sch ones,
@MoreAnonymous see, now we'll change the approach now,
@MoreAnonymous Now recall interference experiment
Do you remember it?
 
@AbhasKumarSinha ofcourse
 
3:45 PM
@MoreAnonymous I've not thought that, but I've problems greater than that.
 
@AbhasKumarSinha So then how will you get a unique final solution from a unique initial problem set up. But I think your midway explaining that
@AbhasKumarSinha okay
 
@MoreAnonymous Now, interference experiement shows that, electrons move in certain way depending on $\lambda$ factor on the previous electrons in order to form wave like pattern
 
No I can do the interference experiement one electron at a time
And I'll still get the pattern
(people have tried that)
 
@MoreAnonymous What? electrons multiply?
 
@AbhasKumarSinha So I can fire one electron in one go
until I fire them all
 
3:48 PM
@MoreAnonymous Yes, fire one electron one by one.
 
@AbhasKumarSinha Cool ... Then the previous electron motion, etc doesn't matter right
 
Then first will hit some point $x_o$ and the second will depend on first one with a factor $\lambda$ to hit $x_1$
@MoreAnonymous It matters, because it has to form waves.
 
@AbhasKumarSinha Ah ...
Thats not how probability works
 
@MoreAnonymous Did I say probability?
 
There is a non zero chance a wave wont work after say 1000 hits
 
3:51 PM
@MoreAnonymous You missed the point completely
 
@AbhasKumarSinha yes .. But in the standard formulation: "There is a non zero chance a wave wont happen after say 1000 hits" this is true
 
@MoreAnonymous I'm not assuming any formulations, see, let me explain that in a different way
 
@MoreAnonymous First electron hits some point.
 
yes
The second can also hit some point (including the first one)
right?
 
3:52 PM
2nd will hit some point obeying interference wave pattern
It won't hit nodes.
 
@AbhasKumarSinha yes
 
@MoreAnonymous Third will also have to follow laws of the previous two, in order to appear like waves.
 
@AbhasKumarSinha let's say I fire a 1000 electrons there is a non-zero chance that a wave pattern will not form. In the sense they all can also hit the same point
Thats what QM tells us^
 
@MoreAnonymous But, if they do like that, they are also making waves.
@MoreAnonymous if they hit same point, then this also follows the laws which we discussed above.
 
@AbhasKumarSinha I don't get how they are "making waves"?
 
3:55 PM
@MoreAnonymous Would you mind if I go now, for dinner?
 
@AbhasKumarSinha Sure thats fine
:)
 
@MoreAnonymous following laws, that they are following previous paths to some extent.
 
I think your saying in the limit number of electrons go to infinity they form a wave
@AbhasKumarSinha Past events (of firing electrons) are not related to present ones
*I think your saying in the limit number of electrons hit the screen go to infinity they form a wave pattern
 
 
2 hours later…
vzn
5:38 PM
@AbhasKumarSinha you say "not discovered till now". do you mean, still undiscovered now?
@MoreAnonymous did you ever look up Couder-Fort-Bush experiments?
 
6:10 PM
@vzn Any link? Google seems to be share some MIT page
 
@vzn I thought this was followed up
?
 
vzn
@MoreAnonymous yes...?
 
7:16 PM
And the quanta link says: "Oil droplets guided by “pilot waves” have failed to reproduce the results of the quantum double-slit experiment, crushing a century-old dream that there exists a single, concrete reality.
"
 
vzn
7:31 PM
@MoreAnonymous yes, found article earlier this year. think the latest supposed conclusions are problematic verging on erroneous and am very disappointed in the findings/ results, and somewhat the efforts. am delighted its getting a 2nd (or 3rd?) look but expect much better of world class scientists. have been meaning to contact some mentioned in the article, thanks for the reminder on that. would like to discuss it all sometime at length with you and/ or others if/ when youre available.
 
 
2 hours later…
10:07 PM
I don't understand the problem with Schrödinger's cat
NPCs are rendered as necessary. Great way to save computing cycles.
 
vzn
@JinLong lol sounds like the simulation hypothesis
Simulated reality is the hypothesis that reality could be simulated—for example by quantum computer simulation—to a degree indistinguishable from "true" reality. It could contain conscious minds which may or may not be fully aware that they are living inside a simulation. This is quite different from the current, technologically achievable concept of virtual reality. Virtual reality is easily distinguished from the experience of actuality; participants are never in doubt about the nature of what they experience. Simulated reality, by contrast, would be hard or impossible to separate from "true...
 
@vzn isn't it kind of an obvious explanation to this particular problem?
 
vzn
@JinLong let me get this straight, you are proposing schroedingers cat is analogous to a NPC in a game?
 
@vzn joking aside, I'm proposing reality might be a simulation.
 
vzn
@JinLong yes. have explored that hypothesis quite in depth myself over the years.
 

« first day (2368 days earlier)      last day (1261 days later) »