Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:47:31 UTC No. 16635302

more people will read big science blog if it has the word quantum in the title

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:18:07 UTC No. 16635319

>>16635288
Welcome to the club.

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:28:39 UTC No. 16635333

Copenhagenism is just a physical restatement of the existentialist philosophical malaise of the first half of the last century.
Somehow the buck stopped there and stagnated for the last 80 years.

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:35:55 UTC No. 16635335

Yes. The main question of quantum mechanics is why a particle follows a wave and what the fuck is Planck's constant.

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:37:49 UTC No. 16635340

>>16635335
>a particle follows a wave
Stupid question.

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:39:15 UTC No. 16635345

>>16635340
Yes. Everybody just ' knows' particles are waves for no reasoning whatsoever.

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:47:52 UTC No. 16635361

>>16635345
>>16635335
Wave particle duology is a result of humans forcing false ontology onto the quantum world. In our everyday life we see particle like behavior and wave like behavior. The distinction is clear cut and we assume objects come in those two types. The thing is the nature doesn't have to fit our ontology at the fundamental level. Electrons are either waves nor particles but their own thing.

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:48:55 UTC No. 16635366

>>16635361
>Electrons are either waves
*neither

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 20:02:22 UTC No. 16635393

>>16635361
Eventually you remember that EMwaves are everywhere. Even your phone is castrating you with radiation as we speak. The wave is electromagnetical.

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 20:13:58 UTC No. 16635406

>>16635288
it has everything to do with quantum mechanics.
it is a consequence of operators that don't commute.
the eigenvectors of operators are bases.
since measurement leaves a wavefunction in an eigenstate, the uncertainty principle comes about because not all operators share the same basis.
in other words, measuring with one operator (e.g. position) necessarily means that the wavefunction will be a linear superposition of eigenstates in a non-commuting operators basis (i.e. momentum)

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 22:48:46 UTC No. 16635503

I won't dismiss you, but to the extend that the theory is fully mathematically formalized, it was of course a given that the technical core of the principle has an abstract, mathematical expression. You follow what I'm saying? Either indeed the theorem has a purely mathematical correspondence, or it was an unformalized kind of principle.
It still has to do with quantum mechanics, in that classical mechanics just uses different mathematical widgets, one where you don't end up with this incompatibility of simultaneous sharp measurements

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 23:26:46 UTC No. 16635521

>>16635361
very based

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 23:28:12 UTC No. 16635522

>>16635503
what is there to dismiss? this is exactly what hamming says in his book as well. the uncertainty principle is an artifact of the mathematical formalism

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 23:51:27 UTC No. 16635542

>>16635361
This.
Quantum mechanical obejects do not behavior like waves or like particles. They behave exactly like quantum mechanical objects.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 01:40:02 UTC No. 16635616

>>16635503
>in that classical mechanics just uses different mathematical widgets
There are uncertainty principles in classical wave mechanics bro
This shit comes up when you learn about communication systems.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 01:52:08 UTC No. 16635625

>>16635406
I think you're so mired in abstract math specific to quantum mechanics that you don't see how this is a result of wave mechanics. You should look up Fourier uncertainty principle.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 01:55:14 UTC No. 16635627

>>16635625
the qm comes in because of wavefunction collapse
that's the physics part of the explanation

i will point out that i also described the general uncertainty principle.
>Fourier uncertainty principle
is not the general principle, but a special case at best

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 02:00:28 UTC No. 16635633

>>16635627
>is not the general principle, but a special case at best
What
Nigga it has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. I think the fact that there's a trade off between the spreads in frequency and time domain is intuitive to people who work with Fourier or Laplace transforms, especially those who study communication systems.
You can pretty much easily derive Heinsenberg's uncertainty principle based on the fourier uncertainty principle by substituting photoelectric effect or de brogie's wave equation.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 02:02:02 UTC No. 16635634

>>16635633
>>16635627
What I mean is the uncertainty principle itself is due to wave nature and is not specific to quantum mechanics

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 03:30:18 UTC No. 16635679

>>16635634
>uncertainty principle
is a special case of general uncertainty principle
you are missing the forest for the trees because you are thinking in terms of only one pair of operations (position and momentum)

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 03:35:18 UTC No. 16635682

>>16635627
>i also described the general uncertainty principle
oh i don't mean you, i meant the op

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 04:03:55 UTC No. 16635697

>>16635679
Yeah but the thing is uncertainty principles aren't unique to quantum mechanics. They're present in anything dealing with wave nature.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 04:12:27 UTC No. 16635699

>>16635288
You just learned something completely wrong and misunderstood the point of quantum mechanics? Good for you, I guess.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 04:55:23 UTC No. 16635721

>>16635697
you are putting the cart before the horse
maybe it will click for you in a few years

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 05:11:24 UTC No. 16635729

>>16635302
Well, please read my new food blog. "Quantum entangled chicken parmesan"

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 05:15:00 UTC No. 16635731

>>16635288
It’s even simpler than that. It’s just the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. It appears in quantum mechanics just because Hilbert spaces are inner product spaces.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 05:16:10 UTC No. 16635733

>>16635729
Sounds delicious, link me up.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 08:33:19 UTC No. 16635806

>>16635731
>it's even simpler that
>proceeds to say complicated abstract math stuff

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 08:37:47 UTC No. 16635813

>>16635806
>basic linear algebra is complicated abstract math stuff
>but Fourier analysis, which is a very abstract topic in functional analysis is of course dead simple

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:06:00 UTC No. 16635835

>>16635813
Hitlert spaces and Cauchy-Schwarz inequality ain't basic algebra, my negro. They're advanced math. Fourier transforms are intermediate shit in comparison. Engineering students learn them. They're also very intuitive and not as abstract.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:18:01 UTC No. 16635840

>>16635835
>Hilbert spaces and Cauchy-Schwarz inequality ain't basic algebra
They literally are. CS is one of the axioms of inner products; you cannot not know about it and claim you understand linear algebra in any capacity. Hilbert spaces are just inner product spaces with an additional requirement of completeness so you can do analysis on them. The usual R^n is a Hilbert space if you didn’t know.
>Fourier transforms are intermediate shit in comparison
Fourier transforms require you to be proficient in topology, measure theory, and functional analysis. It is an active area of research; we have no idea how to approach Fourier analysis on non-compact topological groups. There is only a certain class of such groups where we have a good idea of what’s going on based on pioneering work of Wigner and further tools developed by Mackey.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:08:12 UTC No. 16635972

>>16635729
Will I be hungry after eating it for breakfast or not?
Until I have tried it, both are true.
After doing it, the other state is unknowable.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 13:14:09 UTC No. 16636034

>>16635731
>It’s just the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality
No, it's not. You retards on /sci/ will say anything and it will go unquestioned for weeks if not forever.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 13:29:37 UTC No. 16636044

>>16636034
It literally is, you drooling retard. Here’s an example derivation. Pages 8 and 9.
https://candes.su.domains/teaching/math262/Lectures/Lecture04.pdf

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 13:31:20 UTC No. 16636046

>>16635288
>Why did no one explain it like this to me
Everyone bitches about Jackson but nobody reads him. It's right there in the book.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 14:12:59 UTC No. 16636063

>>16635288
Wait till you find out that Lorentz invariance is just a property of the wave equation.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:32:10 UTC No. 16636122

>>16635840
>CS is one of the axioms of inner product
nope. inner products are positive definite, linear in one argument, and conjugate symmetric.
CS is a consequence of those axioms.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:53:10 UTC No. 16636139

>>16635288
>Heisenberg uncertainty principle has nothing to with quantum mechanics
Not true. You can observe it in fast pulsed lasers

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:59:11 UTC No. 16636147

>>16636122
Yep. My bad. Still a very basic result about inner product spaces.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:44:00 UTC No. 16636483

>>16635288
>I just learned that Heisenberg uncertainty principle has nothing to with quantum mechanics
uhhhhh

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:47:30 UTC No. 16636488

Seriously you guys have to just be fucking with me. Is this a test of some kind?

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:48:43 UTC No. 16636490

>>16636488
Nope. Fourier transform has succinct limit