[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/sci/ - Science and Mathematics

Nerdflix and shill.

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Oh, hey. We're actually having old posts pruned now.

File: 1454525371486.jpg (18.11 KB, 640x480, 4:3, cold_dead_eyes.jpg)

 No.3792

Since observation changes the state of a particle, then could the act of observation be quantified as a force? If so, what is the unit measurement for observation?

 No.3793

>>3792

It's not useful to describe observation as a force, observation acts more like an operator on a function. When you're dealing with at that level is coefficients to a wave equation.


 No.3803

>>3792

i thought the idea was that matter exists in an undifferentiated state until some form of interaction occurs, and the process of observation by its nature requires interaction (eg. a photon hitting the object under observation)

i assume that if you had a god's-eye view of the universe then you could observe things in their undifferentiated state without the normal limitations of observation (qua interaction) through a human medium


 No.3811

>>3803

What about the inviolability of the Uncertainty principle? i mean, i get that we can't measure/observe particles, but why is it wrong to theoreticaly assume that they have a certain position and speed?


 No.3818

>>3811

It's a direct mathematical consequence of how physical variables work in quantum mechanics.

In quantum mechanics, a physical variable is an operator on the wavefunction. Position operator is multiplication by coordinate, and momentum operator is derivative by coordinate (multiplied by -iħ). The two operators are Fourier transforms of each other; that is, you can formulate the momentum operator in an alternative way by performing the Fourier transform on the wavefunction, so you describe the particle not by its probability distribution in space but in wavenumber, which makes the momentum operator a simple multiplication by wavenumber. (Fourier transformation turns derivatives into multiplicators and vice versa)

If you assume a particle has a certain position, then you can describe it by Dirac delta function — a "function" whose value is zero almost everywhere, except in the point where the particle is, normalized so that the integral of such "function" is one (so you can imagine as if the value of the function in that one point is infinite). A Fourier transform of Dirac delta function is a function of form e^ikx (the constant k is not relevant here), and you probably know that this is a cosine wave in real and sine wave in imaginary component, and that it's absolute value is equal to one everywhere. So, if the position of a wavefunction is completely certain, then the wavefunction must be a Dirac delta function in space coordinates, but this means the momentum of that particle is completely undefined, as the absolute value of the wavefunction in wavenumber coordinates is a constant — every wavenumber is equally possible.

The Uncertainty principle is what you get if you assume that the wavefunction is a Gaussian distribution. Fourier transform of a Gaussian distribution is another Gaussian distribution, whose width is inversely proportional to that of the original one. So, the product of widths of the wavefunction in space coordinates and in wavenumber coordinates, both Gaussian distributions, must be a constant. There's also another mathematical proof that you cannot construct a function for which the product of standard deviations in space and wavenumber is smaller than that of a Gaussian distribution, hence the inequality in the Uncertainty principle.

tl;dr: pure maths


 No.3820

>>3793

I don't see any reason why a classical force can't be represented as an operator either.


 No.3822

>>3820

One could, yes. But it's not useful in any regards, as potentials prove to be more fundamental than forces.


 No.3824

>>3818

That comment made me realise how much of an ignorant fuck i am, but i sort of understand, my question now being, if it's all math then how do we know it applies to the real world? couldn't we found some other way of doing it that would allow us assume in theory the speed and position at the same time?




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]