[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 82 KB, 604x490, 1291753558898.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2487088 No.2487088 [Reply] [Original]

OK /sci/. I would like an introduction to quantummechanics. Can you provide?

>> No.2487104
File: 81 KB, 425x600, heisenberg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2487104

>> No.2487117
File: 38 KB, 518x376, 1270874162315_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2487117

>> No.2487139

EVERYTHING THAT CAN HAPPEN, DOES.

AND IT DOESN'T.

>> No.2487136
File: 42 KB, 664x520, 1290715406235.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2487136

>>2487117

>> No.2487147

this is a troll, it contains offensive priests and the actual dark lord joining them

>> No.2487173
File: 10 KB, 189x189, bohr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2487173

Why did the electron cross every road? Because it didn't cross any of them.

>> No.2487185

I've heard about the hologramtheory. Wouldn't that theory- if proven correct- provide a ground for a superior being like God? This shit has made me doubt fuckin reality. Doubt it hard.

>> No.2487199
File: 7 KB, 296x277, consider this.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2487199

A cop pulls Heisenberg over and asks "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."

>> No.2487209

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4Z8CqAiYI8&feature=player_embedded

Just watched this, we live in a hologram. Enjoy BBC HD quality

>> No.2487210

>>2487185

How would the existence of God be any more or less likely in a 2D universe vs. a 3D universe?

>> No.2487213

Plus, why do the uncertainty on a really small scale (for example with the double-slith experiment) work through and lead to an uncertainty on a bigger scale?

>> No.2487217

>>2487209
ive seen it already, which made me ask these questions. OP here, btw.

>> No.2487222

>>2487210
This theory would mean that our universe, our reality, is projected, right? What if our projection is made by a bigger being?

>> No.2487235

this thread is making my head hurt

>> No.2487237

Consider a length of string, maybe about 1 foot long, it doesn't have a length until you measure it

blind=mown

>> No.2487239

>>2487209

I don't get why they were talking about football, and showing a bunch of kids playing soccer. Is that the hologram?

>> No.2487240

>>2487235
these questions were hurting mine already
thats why i want an answer.

>> No.2487242

Griffiths "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics"

>> No.2487244

in b4 Tautoulogicfag.

>> No.2487245

go read hawking's newest book "the grand design"

does all this better than we can because every other sentence isn't a troll in his book

>> No.2487246

>>2487239
look at the whole fuckin thing

its a 60 minute documentary

>> No.2487267

>>2487245
>>2487242

I want to, but first i want to make sure I already have some basic knowledge.

Maybe some links to articles etc?

>> No.2487282
File: 62 KB, 500x500, 1269219428175.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2487282

>> No.2487287

>>2487267
that is basic knowledge

hawking already threw away the jargon so regular joes could understand it

>> No.2487295

>>2487287
ah okay. Will order the book then.

>> No.2487313

>>2487287
Screw that, you cannot understand quantum without understanding the math. That's all quantum is, people will try to sell you on interpretations, duality, multiverses whatever, but none of that matters, none of that is the actual theory, its just metaphysical window-dressing. In quantum mechanics only the math won't mislead you.

>> No.2487326

A basic principle of quantum mechanics in laymans terms is that nothing, NOTHING, is impossible. Just incredibly unlikely.

>> No.2487327

But first some more questions.

If an observation of a particle can influence its state and/or position, doesn't that suggest that our entire universe is completely depending on our observations, and therefore similar to just an illusion? If so, how could it be that an illusion is observed from inside itself?

>> No.2487341

>>2487327
answer, single photon laser beams are the the biggest fuckin trolls in quantum physics.

>> No.2487346

>>2487327
Nope, you "observation" just means interaction. We observe a particle by hitting it with photons usually, that's why observation is bad, not because of the magic power of a sentient person looking at it.

>> No.2487354

>>2487346
Ah. But how does that explain the double-slith experiment (found in the previously posted BBC-documentary?)

>> No.2487363

>>2487354
What specifically is your problem with the two slit experiment?

>> No.2487384

>>2487363

well in that experiment, the outcome changes just by observing the photons right before they enter the slits. or does this observation happen by hitting the photon with other photons?

>> No.2487397

>>2487384
The only real way to observe a photon is to absorb it in some fashion, are you sure it wasn't something like an electron interference experiment?

>> No.2487402

>>2487384
forgot to mention that if the observation doesn't happen by using other photons, this DOES mean that observing the particle influences it, right?

>> No.2487409

>>2487397
They stated in the documentary that if detectors were placed right next to the slit, this happened to influence the outcome.

Sorry if being dumb, physics-noob here. Just really really curious what the fuck I and the whole universe are made of.

>> No.2487423

I like this treat, how many people from different countries are here discussing the same thing?
I'm from Holland.

>> No.2487429

>>2487423
haha, goeiendag jongen. Ik ben OP en kom ook uit nederland.

>> No.2487437

>>2487409

I wonder why anyone doesnt simply place a detector, but doesnt look into which slit the photon passed, and looks if it forms two vertical lines or and interference pattern. That would shut all intelligent observers up.

>> No.2487464

Here's Feynman explaining the path-integral formulation of quantum mechanics in terms a layman can understand without dumbing it down:

http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

Okay, he starts to dumb things down a bit near the end when he gets into the nitty gritty of quantum electrodynamics (even Feynman's not perfect!), but the stuff about how we add together arrows (complex numbers in technical terms) to calculate probabilities is all accurate.

>> No.2487497

>>2487437
>That would shut all intelligent observers up.

I'm afraid not. Quantum mechanics predicts the same results whether or not you put in a collapse when the detector sees which slit it goes through.

You have to understand is that the wavefunction isn't just a function of the position of the particle. It's a function of the position of every particle in the universe. For two waves to interfere, they have to end up in the same place. But if the detector sees which slit the particle went through, the waves don't end up in the same place, because the state of the detector is different in each part.