889 reputation
11340
bio website axiomsofchoice.org
location
age
visits member for 3 years, 1 month
seen 21 hours ago

A duck walks into a bar. Animal control is promptly called and the duck is released into a near by park.


Oct
19
comment Is there any physical quantity that does not have uncertainty?
@CarlWitthoft: I suspect you have two, but I'm not certain about it.
Oct
18
comment Where did Schrödinger solve the radiating problem of Bohr's model?
To answer the question in the title: At the university of Vienna.
Oct
16
comment What is divergence?
@DanielSank: Add one, don't complain.
Oct
16
comment Does velocity determine a geodesic?
I remember making this point here.
Oct
13
comment Laplace operator's interpretation
@jinawee: Yeah, I know, I can't quite remember what it was - probably just a screencap of that second section on Wikipedia I speak about.
Sep
11
comment How can we say that a wave function follows schrodinger equation using operators?
If by energy operator you mean that it's a function value of $H$, i.e. $Â=F(H)$, for example $Â:=4H+H^4$, then $Â$ and $H$ have the same eigenfunctions. (I'm pretty sure about this, certainly in the common cases, but not in general. Look up the spectral theorem. Maybe there are pathological functional analysis scenarios I can't think of right now, it happens sometimes. You know, such that if $F$ is ill-behaved, the domain of $H$ and $F(H)$ is different etc.)
Sep
6
comment Difference between Hamiltonian in classical Mechanics and in quantum Mechanics
@Wingonafly: Regarding your response to the second point, what you derive from what is a matter of choice. Usually the Schrödinger equation isn't taken to be derived from anything but taking as a starting point. I don't know what you mean by "How do you answer the question about..." because your initial post didn't even include specific questions. A main difference is that classical observables always commute.
Aug
19
comment How much energy would the Human Torch need?
Joke's on you, The Human Torch is pretty far from being human.
Jul
28
comment Is this really a golden ratio spiral?
Do you know what the object of your interest actually is? If no, search the web for a definition. Once you understand it, there will be no barrier to take the picture and test it yourself.
Jul
10
comment How can blackbody radition be explained by quantization?
Maybe this question relates as well.
Jul
8
comment Laplace operator's interpretation
@mcodesmart: don't worry.. it was fun!
Jul
7
comment English translation of Heisenberg's paper ``Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik''
As a German speaking person, I'd like to add that I find the translation "actual content" a little debatable. It sounds harsher than "anschauliche Inhalt", which could be translated to "the content which can actually be visualized (maybe opposed to that which is formal but has not clear correspondence to something real)". In particular, "actual content" implies that the other half isn't proper content, while the German expression doesn't imply that.
Jul
2
comment Relationship between the continuity equation and the wave equation
Well, have you studied that free field theory on its own? Hint: If you define a trajectory by $x''=0$ in Newtons theory, then the kinetic energy is $\propto x'^2$ which you can also express via momenta $p\propto x'$ and by the way $p'=0$. If you're interested in $\partial^2\varphi=0$, the Lagrangian is $\propto (\partial \varphi)^2$ and now what you do is introducing the letter $J\propto\partial\varphi$.
Jun
21
comment Why does maximal entropy imply equilibrium?
Thanks for the response. Though my comment to Carl Brannens answer applies here too: In the first sentence of the question I say I consider the question from the point of view of pure thermodynamics, not arguing using the statistical physics model of it.
Jun
5
comment Is quantum gravity, ignoring geometry, the theory of a fictitious force?
@JohnRennie: "Dear President Nixon: Your tenure has witnessed the rise of the VHS tape and string theory as a promising avenue to quantum gravity. Which one do you think will be persued longer?" :)
May
28
comment The path integral and Feynman diagrams
I think there is a history of science SE site now, where this seems to fit. Then again, I don't know who frequents this boards. To get to the question, since you ask how Feynman came to his conclusions, the answer surely lies in his knowledge and for this it's crucial to have a look what he worked on before: wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory.
May
16
comment Double slit experiment and single particles. Is the wave function just a mathematical model?
I personally think that postulating a reality beyond the personal conscious 90 year lasting perception in this world is just humans seeking for stability - the concept is simple and convenient for some thoughts but often with little merit. I'm not good at discussing solutions which are consistent with that framework, but I'd also rather try to phrase the question directly with what you write in the third paragraph: "Will one single photon produce the interference pattern? Does it take many photons to build up the interference pattern?" (Unless the question has been asked before.)
May
16
comment Double slit experiment and single particles. Is the wave function just a mathematical model?
What would you say is an example for a concept within a physical theory which is more than token of a mathematical model?
May
6
comment Is the quantization of the harmonic oscillator unique?
Confirmed by some experiment for some application. One could imagine that the theory arising from a different quantization has other applications. Also that studying other quantization of the system leads to ideas for quantization of other systems. Or the new version might have some observables equal, but is overall more suitable for certain computations. Apart from these points, it's an interesting mathematical question.
Apr
14
comment Does anyone take the Wightman axioms seriously?
"The question sounds like this, for a classical physicist: Does anyone...". That should read: The question sounds (to an here not further specified referent, probably you mean yourself) like the following question sounds like to a classical physicist: Does anyone..."