Quantum Physics

>>8741659
>So quantum physics is basically just curve-fitting natural phenomena, right?

No. Why would you think that?

>>8741674
Watching the MIT quantum physics lectures.

We use suitable models that are proven to work

>what is physics?

>>8741683
Then you've missed something. At most what happened is that natured seemed to imply that we should compute probabilities by adding and then squaring. I guess there's some experiment where you'd fit a curve and to find some value, but that isn't unique to QM.

>>8741691
>suitable models that are proven to work
So F=ma for example, isn't "true" it's just "not falsifiable"?

>accurately predicts emission spectra of atoms
>accurately predicts tunneling
>does this by solving the schrödinger equation, not by curve-fitting

Yes anon, it's pretty much just curve-fitting.

>>8741696
>implying the schrodinger eqn doesn't have a term that cannot be derived and was just "thought up but seems to work"

>>8741659
francis bAcon

>>8741695
Both. Those are equivalent statements in terms of their practicality

A civil engineer has no care for relativity as it is not applicable to his system

>>8741700
Which Schrödinger and which term? You appear to have a flimsy grasp on physics and maths but I will entertain you.

Einstein's theory of relativity hinges on some simple geometric derivations.

>>8741769
https://youtu.be/TWpyhsPAK14

Skip to 11:50

That time dependent form is derivable from the time independent form which is just an eigen system of the Hamiltonian operator acting on a state which produces an eigen state of that vector and the energy. A very rock solid "axiom"

Maybe the phrasing of your opening question is where you went wrong. Its not curve fitting which is determining a solution set of coefficients but through studying a systems behavior and using mathematical intuition and logic to determine an appropriate framework which is testable. Many other people worked on modeling quantum mechanics in ways that differed to Schrödinger and Newton took a long time to (mathematically) describe the laws of motion

Anyway stop watching that lecture series as the lecturer is mediocre, drinks some shithouse looking leafy green blend and your time is better spent reading books.

>>8741829
>>8741909

If anything I said was difficult to understand or you're reluctant to pick up a book on QM then you need to take some steps back and develop your maths. But its worth it, the view is great

>>8741692
>nature implied
Jesus. We just picked such an approach based on standard deviation formulas in math

>>8741942
Nope.