how does an electron avoid colliding with the proton given they're

>>7792662

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

I'm not a physics major but it seems that it's because of the uncertainty principle.

The product of the standard deviations of position and momentum are greater than or equal to h bar over 2. So the more precise you know the location the less precise you know the momentum. If the electron was in the proton it would have 0 momentum and you would know its position, this is impossible.

It's to do with the wave nature of matter, something about the position and momentum are fourier transforms of each other so this causes the inequality

>>7792698
so it has nothing to do with potential gaps or the pauli exclusion principle? damn i was far off.

it makes sense though, i was aware that position and momentum can't be measured without influencing one another, but i didn't know fourier transforms actually came into play. that's pretty damn fascinating.

>>7792698
>know
The universe doesn't give a fuck about what some mouthbreathing monkey shits know, fuck you and your shitty fucking principle.

>>7792730
except it does, because the universe gave particles the fundamental property which lead to the fundamental limit to the precision which we measure complementary variables.

>>7792736
No fuck you.

The more appropriate term is measure

>goddamn, tfw you are the thought police

>>7792741
you're thinking of the observer effect, which is a separate problem that pertains to the effect of a measuring tool.

>>7792747
Hm it appears you are correct.

At any rate fuck your principle. Deterministic realism all the way.

>>7792768
Though, the two are pretty much strongly related.

>The first of Einstein's thought experiments challenging the uncertainty principle went as follows:
>Consider a particle passing through a slit of width d. The slit introduces an uncertainty in momentum of approximately h/d because the particle passes through the wall. But let us determine the momentum of the particle by measuring the recoil of the wall. In doing so, we find the momentum of the particle to arbitrary accuracy by conservation of momentum.
>Bohr's response was that the wall is quantum mechanical as well, and that to measure the recoil to accuracy Δp, the momentum of the wall must be known to this accuracy before the particle passes through. This introduces an uncertainty in the position of the wall and therefore the position of the slit equal to h/Δp, and if the wall's momentum is known precisely enough to measure the recoil, the slit's position is uncertain enough to disallow a position measurement.

>>7792768
I used to think determinism was the only way but ever since general relativity and the uncertainty principle it just seems that the universe is revealing itself to be quite chaotic.

>>7792774
>Bohr's response was that the wall is quantum mechanical as well, and that to measure the recoil to accuracy Δp, the momentum of the wall must be known to this accuracy before the particle passes through. This introduces an uncertainty in the position of the wall and therefore the position of the slit equal to h/Δp, and if the wall's momentum is known precisely enough to measure the recoil, the slit's position is uncertain enough to disallow a position measurement.

>quantum mechanics is consistent within quantum mechanics
is this nigger for real? No shit. That's not a satisfying response.

>>7792778
Only to limited physical beings such as us that are also part of the system.
The notion that the universe is indeterministic is much harder for me to swallow than the notion that it is simply beyond our capabilities to use tools to predict things above a certain level of certainty because of an in-principle limitation on all the tools we could even in theory build with the material available, if you know what I mean.

>>7792780
Yeah I'm not a very big fan of Bohr either.

>Bohr was present when Einstein proposed the thought experiment which has become known as Einstein's box. Einstein argued that "Heisenberg's uncertainty equation implied that the uncertainty in time was related to the uncertainty in energy, the product of the two being related to Planck's constant."[60] Consider, he said, an ideal box, lined with mirrors so that it can contain light indefinitely. The box could be weighed before a clockwork mechanism opened an ideal shutter at a chosen instant to allow one single photon to escape. "We now know, explained Einstein, precisely the time at which the photon left the box."[61] "Now, weigh the box again. The change of mass tells the energy of the emitted light. In this manner, said Einstein, one could measure the energy emitted and the time it was released with any desired precision, in contradiction to the uncertainty principle."
>Bohr spent a sleepless night considering this argument, and eventually realized that it was flawed. He pointed out that if the box were to be weighed, say by a spring and a pointer on a scale, "since the box must move vertically with a change in its weight, there will be uncertainty in its vertical velocity and therefore an uncertainty in its height above the table. ... Furthermore, the uncertainty about the elevation above the earth's surface will result in an uncertainty in the rate of the clock,"[62] because of Einstein's own theory of gravity's effect on time. "Through this chain of uncertainties, Bohr showed that Einstein's light box experiment could not simultaneously measure exactly both the energy of the photon and the time of its escape."

Some more about Bohr and Einstein's debates. Clearly the uncertainty principle very much hinges on uncertainty in measurement, not knowledge per se.

>>7792780
>QM can't be real because of that problem!
>That's not a problem in fact, you have to take that thing into consideration
>QM is consistent with QM bullshit! I do not accept this answer!

>>7792802
I'm just saying the argument is flawed, nothing more, nothing less. There are better arguments. If you don't agree, tell me why the argument is right or we'll leave it at that.
I'm here to learn, not to accept poor arguments (or what seems to be so to me). I'm not to get insulted.