Easy Quantum Mechanics
Materion
sense quantum physics videoclips are easy starters.
Quantum particles represented as arrows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYzFC-nxy9I
Schrodinger equation derived from spinning motion of ordinary arrows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmEMVJYbTu8
A quantum particle acts, it has action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPQS9cF3C7s
Benj
"Common Sense" Quantum Physics?
Now THERE is an oxymoron is ever there was one!
Materion
>
> "Common Sense" Quantum Physics?
> Now THERE is an oxymoron is ever there was one!
I've never understood why we keep repeating that Classical Mechanics
is common sense while Quantum Mechanics is not. I've never been
satisfied with those classical insights where central forces act at
distance upon point masses and point charges. Before you've had some
math and notions about planetary orbitals, it doen't make any sense.
Quantum mechanics on the contrary is elementary at the start. The
basic principles are common sense:
- an object is not located at a point, it spreads out.
- when you measure something on the object, the result is
undetermined, because it depends how you look at it.
- two objects interact, only when they touch or collide...
Spaceman
Well, here is a silly thing,
If you are observing an object, and you did not light upthe object,
There is no reason at all to say you caused an undeterminance since
you did not shine the light on it, you only watched the light come
off it.
They seem to mix up that little bit too much.
I do agree if You shine the light on to it, then you may have
goofed something up in it's natural state since you don't make
natural light.
But just looking at somethings own natural reflection does not
alter anything about it. (the light is leaving naturally and you merely
see the light)
:)
> - two objects interact, only when they touch or collide...
Nothing wrong with that.
But classical mechanics is the same as that, whoever told you
it only deals with "points" never learned it.
classical mechanics is still bases upon "geometry and touch or collide".
Materion
wrote:
> Materion wrote:
> > Quantum mechanics on the contrary is elementary at the start. The
> > basic principles are common sense:
> > - an object is not located at a point, it spreads out.
> > - when you measure something on the object, the result is
> > undetermined, because it depends how you look at it.
>
> Well, here is a silly thing,
> If you are observing an object, and you did not light upthe object,
> There is no reason at all to say you caused an undeterminance since
> you did not shine the light on it, you only watched the light come
> off it.
> They seem to mix up that little bit too much.
> I do agree if You shine the light on to it, then you may have
> goofed something up in it's natural state since you don't make
> natural light.
> But just looking at somethings own natural reflection does not
> alter anything about it. (the light is leaving naturally and you merely
> see the light)
> :)
Yes, looking at something doesn't *cause* any indeterminacy. My point
is that different ways of measuring give inherently different results,
because the objects are extended. For example, if I want to determine
the location of a book on the table, if I notice the light coming from
it, it won't give the same result as if I tapped on it with a ruler
and sense the reaction on the ruler...
> > - two objects interact, only when they touch or collide...
>
> Nothing wrong with that.
> But classical mechanics is the same as that, whoever told you
> it only deals with "points" never learned it.
> classical mechanics is still bases upon "geometry and touch or collide".
Well, in a classical scheme the sun and the earth interact with each
other without any contact. In the current quantum scheme, the sun
emits bosons which interact ('touch and collide') with the particles
composing the earth.
Kind regards,
Arjen
Spaceman
But the point of mechanics would be that either the location
determined by looking or the location determined by touching
would both give the same result unless you improperly figured
the measurements from either one.
In mechanics, a magnetic disk passes by a sensor and tells the position
of a gear or part etc, or a linkage does the same thing, or a light sensor
also does the same thing.
All give the same results if properly set up to measure such correctly.
>>> - two objects interact, only when they touch or collide...
>>
>> Nothing wrong with that.
>> But classical mechanics is the same as that, whoever told you
>> it only deals with "points" never learned it.
>> classical mechanics is still bases upon "geometry and touch or
>> collide".
>
> Well, in a classical scheme the sun and the earth interact with each
> other without any contact. In the current quantum scheme, the sun
> emits bosons which interact ('touch and collide') with the particles
> composing the earth.
Actually, in classical mechanics the Sun interacts with some sort
of force (yet undetermined) so that is what is still missing to
finish classical mechanics.
The missing factor is also missing in "quantum mechanics"
since both are based upon the "physically touching" idea.
If either quantum mechanics or classical mechanics find the
"force" that causes such, both theories will be basically complete
if all the math works out correctly of course.
Both are on the same path, and in my opinion both are better
paths than the relativity paths that use curvature of "spacetime"
and all the bologna associated with it.
If the true reason for the atomic clock malfunction is found,
both mechanics (quantum and classical) will step leaps ahead
of any other branch of physics.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman