tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post1847985777644608155..comments2020-02-17T15:30:18.919-08:00Comments on Dark Buzz: Comic about quantum computing misconceptionRogerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-38342739051856400182016-12-19T04:50:33.260-08:002016-12-19T04:50:33.260-08:00CFT,
You are right. There needs to be a physical ...CFT,<br /><br />You are right. There needs to be a physical referent to the mathematical idea of the quantum mechanical wave. <br /><br />Best,<br /><br />--Ajit<br />[E&OE]<br />Ajit R. Jadhavhttp://ajitjadhav.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-15665093109125096292016-12-19T02:53:53.922-08:002016-12-19T02:53:53.922-08:00Be careful with the word 'wave'. Saying a ...Be careful with the word 'wave'. Saying a particle is a wave clarifies nothing, explains nothing, and is nothing but verbal gymnastics. It might be convenient for a calculation, but it has nothing to do with understanding the thing itself. A wave is a kinetic motion of some kind. A motion of what though? lacking a subject to move, there is no motion, ever, and no, calling it 'energy' does not clarify anything. A wave can not just be made of a bunch of math, as math has no direct influence on reality or the ability to influence existence other than what people do with it in their heads, Platonism be damned. Maybe folks should just go back to the drawing board, jettison the ridiculous Bohr atomic model to explain electrons and atomic structure (we know for a fact they don't work that way)and leave mathematical hypostatization alone for magic, bullshit, and politicians.CFTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-34020106082717794222016-12-17T09:55:27.124-08:002016-12-17T09:55:27.124-08:00Roger,
I am writing a document of a long title: `...Roger,<br /><br />I am writing a document of a long title: ``Born's probability interpretation is not required in order to explain the reason why the normalization condition must be imposed on the Schr\"{o}dinger wavefunction.'' I will share it on my Google drive once it is ready. (Give me a few weeks, mainly in order to shorten the presentation made in the first (v.0.1) cut, and hopefully, also to sharpen the argument in the process.)<br /><br />But, yes, overall, I now have come to accept the view that while there is a valid reason that probabilities enter the QM theory, it is not because the electron is a classical (spatially discrete) particle. The electron basically is a wave, in my freshly changed view. <br /><br />Thus, there is no spatially discrete electron, traveling around everywhere, and occupying a differential element of space and time, in the first place. The probability is that of *measuring* the electron over there (and then). <br /><br />The usual wording: ``|\Psi|^2 is the probability of finding an electron in a region of space'' is ambiguous, because of the ambiguity in the word ``finding.'' This word can be taken to mean either of the two quite different ideas: a discrete particle, or a defining point for the measurement process. I have now come to see that the first one is not tenable, only the second one is. More on that, later. (I am writing notes, but the task of writing accurately is hard, and so, takes time. Also, there are other topics, esp. from engineering, that keep me occupied.)<br /><br />Guess, you had written about the electron not being a spatially discrete particle sometime ago (may be about a year ago). I now agree.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />--Ajit<br />[E&OE]<br /><br /><br />Ajit R. Jadhavhttp://ajitjadhav.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-24908700519273847912016-12-17T06:08:25.586-08:002016-12-17T06:08:25.586-08:00Their obsessions over complex numbers is hilarious...Their obsessions over complex numbers is hilarious. They were outdated since the 19th century with geometric algebra.Matthew Corynoreply@blogger.com