Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Your wallet falls because of gravity. Doesn't matter if theres someone interacting or not.
    your walet falls because the earth is interacting with it, if sudenly something very heavy was over it it would not fall.
    We only know if there is something pulling it upwards once it has been released so you don't know the wallet will fall before you drop it, there just is a very high likelyhood it will happen
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TableChair)

    Hopefully that all makes sense, I'm pretty tired at the moment.
    Thanks very much

    We've just done Young's double slit experiment in A Level physics, you would have thought that the teacher might have just briefly mentioned the implications of doing it with particles... :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mf2004)
    your walet falls because the earth is interacting with it, if sudenly something very heavy was over it it would not fall.
    We only know if there is something pulling it upwards once it has been released so you don't know the wallet will fall before you drop it, there just is a very high likelyhood it will happen
    Well given that I'm not being pulled of the ground, I think I can be pretty sure it will drop.

    Anyways, my point was that physics (and science in general) is based on experimental results which form certain axioms from which we can derive more complicated results. The fact that observing a particle directly affects it is an experimental observation, I don't see how you can dispute it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TableChair)
    Well given that I'm not being pulled of the ground, I think I can be pretty sure it will drop.

    Anyways, my point was that physics (and science in general) is based on experimental results which form certain axioms from which we can derive more complicated results. The fact that observing a particle directly affects it is an experimental observation, I don't see how you can dispute it.
    the point I was making is that in physics before you measure anything you don't know what has happened, everything is experimental no matter if it agrees with your sens no theory can be proved to be right but if you cannot prove they're wrong the chances are they're right.
    imagine the wallet is held 1 meter over the ground and you're incredibly heavy when you aproach the wallet to see if it will fall and you then release it, it comes towards you cause you're so heavy : you influenced the outcome of the experience now miniaturize this : even if you weigh only 1 kg you will still change how the wallet moves : you still interact with the wallet => you have to take the observer into acount when doing an experiment
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mf2004)
    the point I was making is that in physics before you measure anything you don't know what has happened, everything is experimental no matter if it agrees with your sens no theory can be proved to be right but if you cannot prove they're wrong the chances are they're right.
    imagine the wallet is held 1 meter over the ground and you're incredibly heavy when you aproach the wallet to see if it will fall and you then release it, it comes towards you cause you're so heavy : you influenced the outcome of the experience now miniaturize this : even if you weigh only 1 kg you will still change how the wallet moves : you still interact with the wallet => you have to take the observer into acount when doing an experiment
    Well now we're just getting into a discussion into the fact that you can't prove any scientific theory right.

    Sorry, what point are you trying to make?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    in the first part of what I wrote, that physics is only based on theorys that work gravity is one of them there is no absolute proof.
    in the second part I'm trying to say that it's not that anti-intuitive to think the observer influences the outcome
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mf2004)
    in the first part of what I wrote, that physics is only based on theorys that work gravity is one of them there is no absolute proof.
    in the second part I'm trying to say that it's not that anti-intuitive to think the observer influences the outcome
    I don't dispute the first part, but it's a bit off topic.

    It's not the same as the classical way of looking at it. There doesn't need to be a force affecting it, just a measurement to collapse the wavefunction. It's the fact that it has been observed that changes the result, not the method of observation.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I know what you mean and I understand you find it disturbing and I'll probabely never manage to convince you.
    We just think diferently
    and yes the first part is off topic but I think I read a comment about it somewhere in the thread so just wanted to point it out
    anyway no use in arguing on we'll never agree lol
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    ok, to settle my point, I think Its wrong. That is just me, and As I have said, there are more intelligent people working on this. I just don't think Its right. why does everyone have a problem with that? Its my opinion. I agree it worked mathematically, I simply believe there is something missing. Who are you to tell me that my personal beliefs are wrong? by all means disagree with me, but this is turning from a scientific debate to a personal assault.

    My opinion is strongly held, but so is yours that it is perfect. I will change my opinion when someone shows me enough proof. Till then I shall keep to my opinion
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mf2004)
    I know what you mean and I understand you find it disturbing and I'll probabely never manage to convince you.
    We just think diferently
    and yes the first part is off topic but I think I read a comment about it somewhere in the thread so just wanted to point it out
    anyway no use in arguing on we'll never agree lol
    Sorry what?

    You don't seem to be making much sense. I agree with you that you can't prove a scientific theory.

    I find what disturbing? What will you never be able to convince me of?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    ok, to settle my point, I think Its wrong. That is just me, and As I have said, there are more intelligent people working on this. I just don't think Its right. why does everyone have a problem with that? Its my opinion. I agree it worked mathematically, I simply believe there is something missing. Who are you to tell me that my personal beliefs are wrong? by all means disagree with me, but this is turning from a scientific debate to a personal assault.
    You can hold whatever beliefs you want, I just wanted you to present some evidence seeing as this is the physics forum.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    My opinion is strongly held, but so is yours that it is perfect. I will change my opinion when someone shows me enough proof. Till then I shall keep to my opinion
    Because your opinion doesn't seem scientifically based at all. I don't believe there could be much more proof available, but you choose to ignore this and reject quantum theory on personal grounds.

    You personally attack quantum theory and refuse to have a scientific debate about it (i.e. by considering the evidence, and that if something is true mathematically and experimentally then that is by definition a (more or less) correct theory)

    I think very few eminent scientists believe we will see a massive turnaround in quantum theory, it will just be some minor tweaks. Until some evidence comes around which proves that quantum theory is completely wrong, and swims against the tide of many many quantum effects, then I find it a lot easier to justify supporting it than not doing so.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    What O was saying is that I understand you don't believe that what quantum physics is right and there is no point in us arguing further cause you wonn't change your mind neither will I
    and btw evidence are all the experiments that have been carried out have worked following the theory
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mf2004)
    What O was saying is that I understand you don't believe that what quantum physics is right and there is no point in us arguing further cause you wonn't change your mind neither will I
    and btw evidence are all the experiments that have been carried out have worked following the theory
    I do believe that quantum physics is right... (save a few tweaks perhaps)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Go take a chemistry class.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TableChair)
    I do believe that quantum physics is right... (save a few tweaks perhaps)
    I know I just think it doesn't need the tweaks or at least not the same ones as you do
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    As Feynman said, shut up and calculate. Its almost a certainty that current theories will be superseded as they themselves superseded past theories but it doesn't mean they are wrong or incorrect, they just don't describe the whole picture.

    Anybody who has studies physics to the around the start of university level will know that Newtonian mechanics is not the whole story, but people still use it to build bridges/structures because why would they solve the schrodinger equation for a bridge just because its more accurate. QT will still be used in 100's of years time just like NM is still used today.

    It it fits nature and its the simplest theory we have then its also the most accurate IMO.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mf2004)
    I know I just think it doesn't need the tweaks or at least not the same ones as you do
    Are you confusing me with someone else?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TableChair)
    Are you confusing me with someone else?
    yes just realised : DayneD89 lol what a fool I am
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LearningMath)
    Incidentally, how is 'Schrodinger' phonetically pronounced?
    sh-ro-din-ger

    quantum mechanics is mathematics, so there is no "explanation". it's a DESCRIPTION only.

    its about the universe being in DISCRETE states. this is important. a particle is not a particle- its a state. two particles are not two particles or even two states- they're ONE SINGLE two-body state.

    the state is described COMPLETELY by a mathematical equation. for one particle, this equation assigns a complex number to each point in space. the square of this complex number, integrated over a region, may give a position probability density. for many-body states it is more complicated but a reasonable extension. these functions are called WAVEFUNCTIONS, or statefunctions. they satisfy the SCHRODINGER equation. (in non-relativistic QM).

    just like you might say "we can assign to each point in space a temperature and pressure"... you can say "this particle has a wavefunction which at this point in space yeilds a real and imaginary component".

    the rest is just maths... or, if you're clever, some simplification of the fundemental rules which I just described.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.