Re: oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes.


mainargv@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
mainargv@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
mme...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article <1161651800.088343.78310@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, mainargv@xxxxxxxxx writes:
oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes.
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.

You know, some days ago when you started posting it appeared, briefly,
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?

It's not a disability. It's called critical thinking. When some one
gives a handwaving argument, it's either they don't understand it, or
they are not telling, or they don't have a good answer yet, or they
want you to find a better answer, or if they are getting old, they just
set up a framework so that the next generation can follow up. The worst
case would be they have really no clue, then you should be really
worried.

No, it's not called critical thinking, it's called getting what you
paid for.

You would like elucidation without any skill-building on your part, no
requirement to do any homework to gain understanding, no requirement of
reading detailed explanations in graded steps of complexity and depth,
and moreover, you would like this delivered to you on a text-based
newsgroup for free and on demand.
Now, if you would *really* like to learn this stuff, then be prepared
to pay for it with an investment of time, resources, money, and
attention. If you don't what any more than a hobby-level investment
then you will get a hobby level understanding.

Stop whining and figure out what you're willing to pay for what you
will gain.

[Stinkbait thrown back out of the water and into the boat]
PD





Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | chances are he is doing just the same"

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how?
    ... Such verbiage does not rise to the level of explanation for the ... > adopting the perspective of Max Born, that the Schroedinger wave, a.k.a. ... >>> through an aether, multitudinous scenarios arise by which that medium ... > more dismiss a particular variant because some other variant failed than ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how?
    ... >>> with itself through the two slits of a Young's experiment. ... Such verbiage does not rise to the level of explanation for the ... adopting the perspective of Max Born, that the Schroedinger wave, a.k.a. ... >> through an aether, multitudinous scenarios arise by which that medium ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: String theory, double slit experiment
    ... with the incident *wave* to cause a transition. ... constructively interfere the number of whitecap counts along those ... On second thought, the wave explanation ... an obvious conclusion that a quantum particle interferes with itself. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Quantum theory: A resonance effect?
    ... weirdness as an explanation for the mystery of consciousness, ... the mysterious "observer" responsible for the collapse of the wave ... Either detector could be triggered by that wave, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Why cant waves cause the photoelectric effect
    ... > that the intensity could correspond to both a combination of the wave ... I must have missed that part of your explanation. ... about "wave packet" here instead of "wave". ... that photons have partly wave properties and partly particle properties! ...
    (sci.physics)