tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post115920304338691821..comments2024-03-11T13:47:03.621-05:00Comments on Physics and Physicists: Why is Quantum Mechanics SO Difficult?ZapperZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15861398273820851809noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-49941318822226100962007-10-08T08:12:00.000-05:002007-10-08T08:12:00.000-05:00Actually, I disagree with this.The probability in ...Actually, I disagree with this.<BR/><BR/>The probability in QM is not the same as in classical probability where you've tossed a coin that has a definite outcome, but you just don't know what it is. The charge in an atom IS spread out all over. That's how you can the chemical bonds.<BR/><BR/>It all comes back to the issue of superposition. Can a quantum particle exhibit the superposition of those orthogonal states? The answer is yes. Those states do exist and are occupied simultaneously before a measurement. All the effects from that can be seen in chemistry and in the Stony Brook/Delft experiment.<BR/><BR/>So if such superposition of states can exist, we can certainly consider the likelihood that for a quantum particle, the "smearing" of position as far as the charge is concerned (what can typically be seen as the screen effects in atom) is certainly something that is expected within the quantum scenario. So no, it isn't the way you had described.<BR/><BR/>Zz.ZapperZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15861398273820851809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-4430734913266903432007-10-02T08:35:00.000-05:002007-10-02T08:35:00.000-05:00Uno - read Feynam's lectures. he mentions QM in an...Uno - read Feynam's lectures. he mentions QM in an intuitevely sound way from the earliest lectures, and builds up a paradigm that feels natural & fun.<BR/><BR/>What I gleaned in the first few lectures is that BOTH your cloud of charge and 'electron planet' do not fit Feynman's interpretation. <BR/><BR/>Cloud of charge? No a cloud of probability - or a probability density function. Think of the electron as actually being there somewhere, we just cannot know where it is for certain. <BR/><BR/>Of course,as the original poster said 'this is just an interpretation'. But at least it's Feynman's interpretation! And he does the math in III.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726844979727269022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-18815175916251178512007-04-10T12:23:00.000-05:002007-04-10T12:23:00.000-05:00Hello ZapperZ.I think your analysis is quite compl...Hello ZapperZ.<BR/>I think your analysis is quite complete; I would add just this, according to my personal difficult in understanding QM.<BR/>My main problem is not, AFAIK, to keep using classical concepts; I have always been ready to learn new concepts. My problem, and I think many other people has the same, is the inner need to have a sort of "paradigm" of QM concepts, something that we can understand intuitively and of which we could make a "figure" in some way. For example: I didn't have to make a revolution on my mind when they told me electrons in an atom are not little balls going around the nucleus but they are clouds of charge "instead". The problem is that they are neither the one nor the other, so what *exactly* one can figure them? This is my main problem, and maybe many other's problem.<BR/>Lightarrow.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10282297558738113825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-24218814519290842292007-02-19T03:50:00.000-06:002007-02-19T03:50:00.000-06:00I wonder if anyone ever tried to build the bridge....I wonder if anyone ever tried to build the bridge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-72193959471033816042007-02-17T07:30:00.000-06:002007-02-17T07:30:00.000-06:00Best thing I've read all week.Best thing I've read all week.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com