/sci/ - Science & Math

I'm in a conundrum /sci/.

I've recently been reading as much material as I can get my hands on about quantum mechanics. I find it utterly fascinating, far more fascinating than what I'm studying (Computer Science). I'm having some difficulty understanding a lot of what I'm reading (I've only got Physics I under my belt), but that has only caused me to be more determined in my cause to get a grasp of it. I want very badly to take more physics classes, but all I need for my major are physics I and II and it doesn't have a lot of free elective credits (only 6, which I have already satisfied). When I think about what I really want to be studying, it always comes down to physics.
The problem is, I don't know what I would do with a degree in physics. I do NOT want to teach. I feel I would be an awful teacher; I'm impatient and not very good at wording what I'm trying to explain; when I explain something to someone more than once and they still do not understand what I'm trying to say, I tend to get a little frustrated and kind of give up. I'm not sure what else I could really do with a physics degree besides teaching, except research, which I feel I wouldn't really be cut out for. I think I'd have to get a doctorate or at least a masters to find a research job (maybe I'm wrong here).
Anyways, I guess I'm looking for some advice. Are there any other jobs you all can think of that I could get with a physics degree? Would I need a post-grad degree (The time and financial commitments are what are turning me off from that)? Are there any other compromises I could make? I was considering a dual major with CompSci and Physics, but my advisor told me it would be a bad idea as it would add unnecessary time to my degree by studying a field I don’t even plan to get a job in. This is a fair point, but I get the impression she’s usually more interested in getting me out of the office than she actually is in my future or happiness.
Any advice at all would be appreciated.

Gentlemen, how do we fix quantum physics?

This shit has never been adequately explained to me in school.

According to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle the velocity and position of a particle can't be known simultaneously. For example: the position of an electron is measured with a photon. The shorter that photon's wavelength is, the more accurately it can measure the electron's position, but the more energetic it is, and the more it will influence the electron's velocity. Is this correct?

QM interpretations often portray this behaviour as a property of nature, instead of as a fundamental shortcoming of the principle of measurement itself. How can we be certain that measurement does not influence nature in a deterministic way? Is there any empirical evidence that outrules hidden variables and shows that nature is fundamentally undeterministic, or is it just some ethereal interpretation?

From what I have gathered this undeterminism was what Schrödinger (in his cat paradox) and Einstein (in the EPR paradox) tried to question in QM.

Any literature related?

ITT: Concepts that are fascinating

Do all operators commute with themselves?

I wrote this a few months ago. It's only a couple pages long so please read. Mind, it was written for a less intelligent audience, so just bear with me. Thoughts? Comments? Problems? Questions? etc.?
(here is a link to the .doc: http://kakattack.com/Files/randomness.doc )

Ok /sci/ give me your best. Today I was watching Feynman give a lecture on the uncertainty principle on youtube. In that lecture he joked that everyone believes there HAS to be someway to view the idealized, deterministic laws of physics. This wasn't my first tango with the uncertainty principle, but I have never tried to think of someway to defeat it. But today I had an idea. HOWEVER, when I have an idea I default to the belief that I am of average intelligence and the 100 millionth person to think of the idea. There has to be experiments and studies being done on the idea I have, but everything that came up was too technical. SO...here was the idea.

IDEA: The uncertainty principle if founded on the fact that to observe an object you must bounce another object off it, thus altering the object you're trying to observe. So all we need is to find some passive way to observe right? Something that is omnipresent; always giving out signals. MOTHERFUCKING GRAVITY. Well, defaulting back to my belief in my own stupidity I started looking up ways that scientist are trying to DIRECTLY observe gravitational waves, that Einstein predicts should exist. More specifically, if we can observe these waves, can it be done passively, and does that mean we can defeat uncertainty? But I'll be damned if I can find anything that addresses this idea for laymen. So, /sci/, help a nigga out!!!

Position is a relative location.
The uncertainty in the position of a particle relative to itself is 0.
No uncertainty!
What's wrong with that?

so this equation, the Uncertainty Principle, would represent Schrodinger's Cat?

>>4551390

Wouldn't there be random fluctuations due to uncertainty? Therefore, change, therefore, time?

I really do not fucking know and I trust anyone who tells me no, I'm just throwing it out there.

So the other night I put my dick through a glory hole in a seedy night club. I don't know who was on the other side but it felt good. Considering there was a 50/50 male/female ratio, is it possible that I am gay now? Is it possible to be quantumgay?

What's the probability of getting dubs?

>>3935464
>Never knowing some information
>Sounds about right

>>3869608
i guess from the uncertainty principle

I have a question about the Uncertainty Principle, /sci/.

When i was in high school, I thought of an example that seemed to beat Heisenberg. So if he's right, can someone explain why this is wrong and how the principle actually works?

A train sets off from a train station. The station itself is the 0 mile marker and it takes 1 mile for the train to accelerate to its top speed of 60 mph. This means at the one mile mark onward, it travels at an exact and constant 60 mph. We now know everywhere that train is at the same time we know its speed. We can say for certain that the train will be exactly at the 61 mile mark in one hour from the 1 mile mark and be going exactly 60 mph.

This is a perfect system train, by the way. Speed is adjusted constantly to beat friction and air resistance, etc so that we don't have a ridiculous debate about how many millimeters off we are.