Re: oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes.
- From: "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Oct 2006 21:42:24 -0700
mainargv@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
mme...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article <1161651800.088343.78310@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, mainargv@xxxxxxxxx writes:
oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes.You know, some days ago when you started posting it appeared, briefly,
They tell you that there are this and that particle, photons,
electrons, and other interesting corner cases.
While they could have told you, there was just this one equation,
derived from the second derivative of Maxwell's equations, that they
regularly do math tricks with. No wonder no one will give a straight
face explanation where that quantum wave function came from. Every
introductory textbook either fudge the argument to unimpenetrable depth
to tell you how you must accept the wave function as a postulate. Of
course no one understands it, because there was no argument, no
insight, just an empty framework for people to do experiments to fill
in the corner cases. Now, that's a good strategy.
that you may be worth some investment of time. This impression is
rapidly fading, though. Nothing wrong with ignorance per se (we're
all ignorant of many things), it is curablebut only if you realize
that you've a lot to learn before trying to make pronouncements. The
way you're progressing now you're on path to become another Savain.
And, no, QM is not derived from the second derivative of Maxwell's
equations.
Where does it come from then?
Read the section of your book that talks about it, or search google for
a derivation of the Schroedinger equation. No QM book worth its' salt
would just postulate the Schroedinger equation without even a cursory
explanation where it comes from. Unless you are taking a computational
course, which I doubt.
Why does it look so much like Maxwell's [ del^2 E = u0e0 (d/dt)^2 E ]
with E replaced by psi,
In what sense does it "look like" one of the wave equations derived
from Maxwell's equations?
Schroedinger's equation only has one time derivative of the wave
function - a wave equation has a term that is twice differentiated with
respect to time.
Is your knowledge of mathematics weak enough that you can't tell the
difference?
and the constant replaced by 1/v^2 ? and the requirement v must be
constant?
No.
Also P=psi^2=1 => del psi=0.
No.
I suspect you don't actually have the mathematics required to
understand either Maxwell's equations or introductory quantum
mechanics.
Take a careful look at the normalization condition. Notice it is an
integral over ALL SPACE? Just because the definite integral of a
function has magnitude 1 does not mean the function itself has
magnitude 1.
Of course, everything developed under this framework is right, because
they automatically satisfy classical EM. I was harsh saying there was
no good insight, there was probably very good insight.
Actually, you have no idea what you are talking about.
You need a very good argument to convince me otherwise.
Why would be concerned about the whining of someone with a major
learning disability?
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes.
- From: mainargv
- Re: oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes.
- References:
- oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes.
- From: mainargv
- Re: oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes.
- From: mmeron
- Re: oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes.
- From: mainargv
- oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes.
- Prev by Date: Re: Fearless Johnny vs. Super Losers vs. X
- Next by Date: Re: Magnetorheology Experiment
- Previous by thread: Re: oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes.
- Next by thread: Re: oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
