[ 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

File: 57 KB, 418x720, 0003_wPF5h.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Jul 8 03:40:41 2013 No.5887398 [Reply] [Original]

So, /sci/, what the fuck does this mean?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 8 03:52:39 2013 No.5887412 It's beethoven's moonlight sonata

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 8 03:56:09 2013 No.5887416 File: 118 KB, 1200x720, a-clockwork-orange-475864l.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5887412 NOOOO! NOT BEETHOVEN! MAKE IT STOP! MAKE IT STOPP!!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 8 03:57:39 2013 No.5887417 the shittiest "derivation" of schrodingers equation ive ever seen

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 8 03:59:10 2013 No.5887422 schrodinger's equation

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 8 17:45:10 2013 No.5888781 >>5887417 What makes that derivation "shitty" in your opinion?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 8 17:48:39 2013 No.5888789 >>5887417 If you know a good derivation, can you link it? I've been searching for months.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 8 17:49:39 2013 No.5888795 >>5888781 It's just as shitty as any derivation of Schrödinger's equation is. If you just accept the last line, you're good to go.

Anonymous Mon Jul 8 19:21:10 2013 No.5888982

>>5888795
How will you ever discover anything if you just blindly accept the correct answer?
Schrodinger could never have just guessed that equation. Did you know that he discovered the Klein-Gordon equation beforehand? It disagreed with results, so he took the classical limit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 9 03:07:47 2013 No.5889596 >>5888982 >the classical limit What is that?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 9 18:40:22 2013 No.5890625 >>5888982 >Schrodinger could never have just guessed that equation Interestingly that's exactly what happened. He wrote down the equation in his dream and it turned out to be useful.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 10 02:41:21 2013 No.5891334 >>5890625 What is a dream?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 10 17:52:08 2013 No.5892749 >>5888795 LEL iz just non-relativistic limit of Dirac equation.

Anonymous Wed Jul 10 17:57:08 2013 No.5892772

>>5888795
My favorite:
Is a solution of the Schrödinger Lagrangian

But seriously:
Non-relativistic limit of the particle part of the Dirac equation - which, of course, is just an equivalent statement to the above one, if Dirac Lagrangian is taken to effective field limit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 10 20:25:37 2013 No.5893163 >>5891334 A dream is neuronal activity during sleep.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 10 20:26:08 2013 No.5893168 >>5891334 it's basically a screen saver that shows your brain's activity while it categorizes memories

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 11 03:31:08 2013 No.5893849 What is Schrodinger's equation and why do we need it?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 11 18:29:38 2013 No.5894956 >>5893849 It describes the time evolution of a cat in a box.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 11 21:20:08 2013 No.5895230 File: 58 KB, 711x400, fc96a0834fad9bb68b00fc864f444e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 12 04:48:07 2013 No.5895729 >>5895230 No, that's a different equation.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 12 18:11:09 2013 No.5896895 >>5893168 How does it categorize memories?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 13 02:52:17 2013 No.5897774 >>5895729 What equation is it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 13 18:35:01 2013 No.5899215 >>5897774 I don't know. I'd like to know it too.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 14 02:59:01 2013 No.5899876 >>5896895 Through several processes associated with memory consolidation.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 14 17:58:05 2013 No.5901135 >>5899876 What processes are you talking about?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 15 02:57:14 2013 No.5901897 >>5901135 Molecular and network consolidation.

Talimar Mon Jul 15 03:13:05 2013 No.5901917

..... Likely doesn't calculate anything? Given the 3 spatials (and my limited work in the area), to me it looks like it syncs up the point at which there is no relationship for all values.

(the problem with not knowing that one phi is another phi doesn't help, and the image is still blurry, making hard to read.)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 15 04:48:34 2013 No.5901981 >>5887398 Pretty sure it describes the probability of the energy and position of an electron (or a different particle).

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 15 19:31:34 2013 No.5903391 >>5901981 You are wrong.

Anonymous Mon Jul 15 19:37:05 2013 No.5903402

>>5887398
Just taking a brief glance, since some of those symbols seem idiocratic, that's effectively a sort-of derivation, more an explanation of the schrodinger equation. As far as I know there is no rigorous derivation of the schrodinger equation as it is essentially a statement of conservation of energy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 15 19:39:35 2013 No.5903408 >>5903402 you can derive the schordinger equation from semi-classical physics ideas, but that's not how he did it

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 03:03:34 2013 No.5904013 >>5903402 >there is no rigorous derivation of the schrodinger equation Wrong. >essentially a statement of conservation of energy Wrong again. Did you drop out of high school?

Anonymous Tue Jul 16 03:53:04 2013 No.5904073

First picture is the derivation of the basic solutions of the wave function, assumed periodic dependence (hence the exponential in omega*t and k*x), then inserting the relativistic energy for the energy term to form the classical Lagrangian for a harmonic oscillator.
The second picture has the formulas for the complex conjugate of the first solution, psi*, which satisfy the imaginary part of the original wave equation. Multiplying the first by psi* and the second by psi then subtracting gives the big psi equation and its solution. Partially deriving twice with respect to t to give the proper time dependence of psi with phi (which is just the momentum contribution in the relativistic energy). Divide through by c^2 and equating the coefficients gives the Schrodinger's equation.
This proof is missing a lot of steps in the second picture (its first frame is also missing parts), but it's the jist of it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 16 18:25:33 2013 No.5905530 >>5903402 >since some of those symbols seem idiocratic, Which ones?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 17 02:24:34 2013 No.5906301 >>5903408 >you can derive the schordinger equation from semi-classical physics ideas How?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 17 02:28:04 2013 No.5906306 >>5906301 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsX5iUKNT2k

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 17 02:29:33 2013 No.5906309 >>5893163 >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 17 20:16:04 2013 No.5907968 >>5906309 How is neuroscience /x/ related?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 18 02:26:05 2013 No.5908628 >>5906306 How is this semi-classical?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 18 20:26:46 2013 No.5910161 >>5908628 Because it involves Planck's constant.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 18 20:31:18 2013 No.5910175 >>5908628 it takes a bunch of ideas from classical physics and assumes that you can use it to describe waves that describe quantum properties. if you can't tell which ones are classical and which ones aren't, why are you talking at all?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 19 16:20:47 2013 No.5911893 >>5910175 >and assumes that you can use it to describe waves that describe quantum properties. How is that assumption justified?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 19 16:22:47 2013 No.5911895 >>5911893 bamp sbam

Anonymous Sat Jul 20 02:28:17 2013 No.5912864

>>5910175
>it takes a bunch of ideas from classical physics and assumes that you can use it to describe waves that describe quantum properties.
That is not what the term "semi-classical" means. Why do you obnoxiously promote this tremendous ignorance?
>if you can't tell which ones are classical and which ones aren't, why are you talking at all?
>projecting

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 18:50:34 2013 No.5914215 >>5912864 What does the term "semi-classical" mean?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 22:22:35 2013 No.5914550 >>5887416 is beethoven really that bad? What does anyone think of Joe Hisaishi btw? I listen to him when I'm doing work? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwTqNNXNQnA

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 20 22:23:05 2013 No.5914551 >>5914550 13 day old thread

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 03:27:06 2013 No.5914956 >>5914215 Semi-classical physics uses techniques from astronomy to study cats.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 16:52:04 2013 No.5915870 >>5899215 Best I found: answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080501140727AAb2Ys1

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 17:00:04 2013 No.5915881 isnt nabla2 = laplace ?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 12:26:04 2013 No.5917426 >>5915881 Only if you define it properly.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]