Quantum Mechanics

>>7636231
le particles are le particles but also le waves and exists everywhere and nowhere at same timez

I took some coursework in the subject, but I'm not a physicist. What would you like to know? Explaining everything I know wouldn't be appropriate for a thread.

>>7636231
OP I would have to write multiple textbooks. As I learned QM by reading multiple textbooks.

>>7636231
Douchebags use it to shill their shitty ass books on the power of positive thinking.
Shits a probability cloud. Other than that, I don't know dick.

>>7636231
Physicist here. What specifically do you wanna know?

Apparently reality only exists because we observe it.

>>7636231
>anything can happen any time for no reason!!! Universe is randumb!!!!

Really it says we cannot predict the exact behavior of subatomic particles but they do behave in probabilistic ways.

This may be because there is information we're missing that would allow more precise predictions or it may be because the behavior of these particles really is fundamentally different from the behavior of macroscopic objects and they cannot be predicted exactly because they really are somewhat random.

Even if there is true randomness at play the odds of a significant portion of the particles that make up an object doing something unusual all together at the same time is astronomically unlikely, so even if maybe it is technically possible for some particles in you to pass through a solid wall that doesn't mean QM says you can walk through walls or any crazy shit like that.

To me it was just the exponential function over and over again.

So I guess I know fuck all about qm

File: Hydrogen Wavestuff.jpg (321KB, 827x2476px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 827x2476px

>>7636231

r8 my quantum knowledge

this was an assignment I had to do at some point when I took quantum chemistry classes

>DUDE YOU CANT KNO NUFFIN LMAO

File: nukular.jpg (1MB, 580x4410px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 580x4410px

>>7636231

How exactly do you "collapse" a "wave function"

Is it metaphor

>>7637532
stop watching youtube videos

File: 1401844440727.png (338KB, 576x1023px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 576x1023px

>>7636231

Are the electrons in atomic orbitals not discrete point-like electrons but more like surfaces?

>>7636231
all my knowledge on QM comes from Michau Kaoku documentaries on youtube

File: 1551705545_brendan_fraser_pictures_xlarge.jpg (12KB, 262x350px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 262x350px

>>7636231
>your first day in college
>you see that

>>7637586
No, they are points.
If you measure the electron's position, you find it to occupy a single point.
>>7636231
That depends exactly what you mean by quantum mechanics. Some people use the term for non-relativistic quantum theory, whereas other people include QFT and quantum gravity. Is there something particular you want to know?

>>7637673
>If you measure the electron's position, you find it to occupy a single point.
ayy lmao. you forgot about uncertainty principle.. and experimental uncertainty.

>>7636231
I have a very very very small grasp on the concept

>>7637594
Oh wow your so smart!

>>7637686
you clearly dont get the meme...

File: image.jpg (15KB, 419x129px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 419x129px

>>7637122

File: laughter709.jpg (23KB, 400x267px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 400x267px

>>7637701
>thinks he didn't get the meme

>>7637682
The uncertainty principle doesn't affect what I said - it just means that the momentum uncertainty is infinite.
There might be experimental uncertainty, but in an idealised situation, the particle is a point. Specifically, the position eigenstates are delta functions.

>>7637545

I take so much satisfaction in knowing that this colossal idiot more than likely outgrew this autistic behavior and has massive anxiety when reflecting upon how much of a retard he was OR he is still retarded.

>>7637762
no. prove no volume

>>7637773
Don't worry - like all of us, he's going to be dead someday

>>7637777
found the other hyper-intelligent person

any good list of quantum experiments and outcomes?

"Physics constitutes a logical system of thought which is in a state of evolution, and whose basis cannot be obtained through distillation by any inductive method from the experiences lived through, but which can only be attained by free invention. The justification (truth content) of the system rests in the proof of usefulness of the resulting theorems on the basis of sense experiences, where the relations of the latter to the former can only be comprehended intuitively."

"Every observation presupposes that there is an unambiguous connection known to us, between the phenomenon to be observed and the sensation which eventually penetrates into our consciousness. But we can only be sure of this connection, if we know the natural laws by which it is determined. If however, as is obviously the case in modern atomic physics, these laws have to be called in question, then even the concept of "observation" loses its clear meaning. In that case it is theory which first determines what can be observed."

>>7637762
What if it becomes a discrete point upon measurement?

>>7637532
>wave function says thing can be any letter between c and o
>look at thing
>thing is g
>wavefunction collapsed
but with energies/positions/states instead of letters

>>7639116
So you just measure the thing and find out what it is, probably altering it via whatever method or instruments are needed to measure it.

Why call it "collapsing"? What is supposedly special about it? Why am I supposed to believe that quantum events and outcomes are by their nature, probabilistic?

>>7639119
because quantum physicists have a hadron for making things more complicated than they need to be

>>7639128
>hadron
I see what you did there.

It seems that way to me as well. Which is why as someone who doesn't deeply, or even superficially understand the ideas involved with the field, I'm looking for answers.

>>7639119
Because they are.
If nature shows reproducibly that it acts a certain way, then that's the way we have to accept it is, until an experiment comes along that refutes it or a better theory shows up. There is definitely more to the story underneath it all since we know the Standard Model CAN'T be the last word, but QM is an established probabilistic theory and that's just how it is.

I passed my QM1 exam ask me anything.

Daily reminder that if your QM class didn't develop everything from C* algebras and the GNS theorem you're a fucking plen and should shoot yourself.

>>7637776
It's an assumption.

>>7639952
>It's an assumption.
lel