“They saw their injured country's woe;
The flaming town, the wasted field;
Then rushed to meet the insulting foe;
They took the spear, - but left the shield.”
―Philip Freneau
.
And by a prudent flight and cunning save A life which valour could not, from the grave. A better buckler I can soon regain, But who can get another life again?
Archilochus
Sunday, April 20, 2025
The Wave's not Real...
...and other modelling and mathematical theoretical "artifacts".
Numerous students don’t know the Schrodinger ‘wave’ isn’t an actual wave°° even though QM states quite clearly that Psi isn’t even an observable: it’s a function (somewhat ‘wavy’ in appearance, often) that contains all the information about the system. This information is extracted from the function by applying specific operators to it (e.g. the ‘momentum operator’)
A very important operator is the ‘square of the modulus’ (of Psi) operator of Max Born. This is basically the probability density, in function of the position vector.
For a fast electron (e.g.) Psi squared is very wave-like and definitely observable. It’s these ‘probability waves’ that give rise to interference (diffraction) patterns in electron diffraction experiments and what prompted that wretched phrase “particle wave duality”. Like ‘ordinary’ waves (e.g. light) ‘probability waves’ are eminently additive and subtractable, leading to areas of enhances and reduced paricle probability: light and darker bands ensueing.
Schrodinger and de Broglie were almost certainly convinced there were such things as “matter waves”, a wrong assumtion that helped QM considerably on the right way… The history of science is full of instances like that.
°° Folklore has it that re. this ‘wave’ a famous physicist once quipped: ‘Wave? Nothing oscillates there!’ Even a cursory inspection shows the S. function cannot be an actual wave: its unit of measurement is the inverse square root of the meter! And many e.g. (atomic) wave functions are complex valued: imaginary numbers!
This is just so confusing. I suppose its' much like philosophy, you need to work through the concepts as they were chronologically developed and applied throughout the history of physics (or in my case, philosophy) in a Foucaultian "archeology of knowledge".
How QM eventually came to rule the day is far more chaotic than most students may imagine. Multiple 'injections' at different times, interpretational differences (persisting to this day) etc. make for uneasy reading of its history. Some of its contributors weren't even all that keen on the idea of QM, at least initially, see Einstein and Heisenberg.
No, there's an Avant-Guarde (quantum) and Kitsch (mechanical) faction in the Sciences, much as there once was in Art (It's ALL kitsch now, in Art anyways). Unfortunately, Physics has become "academic", which proved the ruin of avant-garde Art. The sciences need alchemists, not university professors, if the culture is to advance, once again. Physics has become "stagnant". ;P
It's incorrect to use Godel's discovery. That was about purely formal systems ONLY. Out of it designated scope of use (yet one example if non-understanding)
Yes, the Spartans were believed by other Greek tribes to be very profound/ Laconic. But then one could say that about cows, too.
Language was never meant to convey "information". It was meant (before the Pauline Inversion), as for cows, to enunciate my presence and glorify myself.
It's "universal"... the commodification of land, labour, capital, and now also, information.
"Smartness" is a commodity to be bought or sold by those with a storehouse of commodified capital (ala billionaires). Step out of line and like Tesla, you will be crushed... no matter how 'smart' you are... no matter how much better you "tech" is. Tesla was giving away his energy. He wasn't "controlling" it.
56 comments:
Yes, good video.
Numerous students don’t know the Schrodinger ‘wave’ isn’t an actual wave°° even though QM states quite clearly that Psi isn’t even an observable: it’s a function (somewhat ‘wavy’ in appearance, often) that contains all the information about the system. This information is extracted from the function by applying specific operators to it (e.g. the ‘momentum operator’)
A very important operator is the ‘square of the modulus’ (of Psi) operator of Max Born. This is basically the probability density, in function of the position vector.
For a fast electron (e.g.) Psi squared is very wave-like and definitely observable. It’s these ‘probability waves’ that give rise to interference (diffraction) patterns in electron diffraction experiments and what prompted that wretched phrase “particle wave duality”. Like ‘ordinary’ waves (e.g. light) ‘probability waves’ are eminently additive and subtractable, leading to areas of enhances and reduced paricle probability: light and darker bands ensueing.
Schrodinger and de Broglie were almost certainly convinced there were such things as “matter waves”, a wrong assumtion that helped QM considerably on the right way… The history of science is full of instances like that.
°° Folklore has it that re. this ‘wave’ a famous physicist once quipped: ‘Wave? Nothing oscillates there!’ Even a cursory inspection shows the S. function cannot be an actual wave: its unit of measurement is the inverse square root of the meter! And many e.g. (atomic) wave functions are complex valued: imaginary numbers!
This is just so confusing. I suppose its' much like philosophy, you need to work through the concepts as they were chronologically developed and applied throughout the history of physics (or in my case, philosophy) in a Foucaultian "archeology of knowledge".
How QM eventually came to rule the day is far more chaotic than most students may imagine. Multiple 'injections' at different times, interpretational differences (persisting to this day) etc. make for uneasy reading of its history. Some of its contributors weren't even all that keen on the idea of QM, at least initially, see Einstein and Heisenberg.
QM rules? Really? ;-P
It doesn't look like that. At all.
It just took some space -- where there NO other explanation possible. And became arcana knowlage.
In all other places, especially in practical applications -- Newton still rule.
//Schrodinger and de Broglie were almost certainly convinced there were such things as “matter waves”,
And what's the difference between "it really exist" and "we have a formula that allows us to calculate it"? ;-)
Like.
There is no phlogistone...BUT, we still calculate how warms " flows" throught matter.
So? What's the difference?
"What's up, doc?" © {in Buggs Bunny voice }
...and in the "Physics/Quantum" space...Newton is arcana.
There is NO other space.
ONLY quantum one. ;-p
Even MORE then that -- purely mechanical world of Newton -- not feasible.
No, there's an Avant-Guarde (quantum) and Kitsch (mechanical) faction in the Sciences, much as there once was in Art (It's ALL kitsch now, in Art anyways). Unfortunately, Physics has become "academic", which proved the ruin of avant-garde Art. The sciences need alchemists, not university professors, if the culture is to advance, once again. Physics has become "stagnant". ;P
Quantum physics has merely become a Major Arcana. ;0
SO give everyone a FabLab... and let the alchemy begin!
//The sciences need alchemists, not university professors, if the culture is to advance, once again. Physics has become "stagnant". ;P
Not technologists? ;-)
Well. Yeah. Who need that techy gramps. :-())
What would a technologist do with a FabLab except build some Ovo-fish to swim in his fishtank. I say, let him get on with it!
???
FabLab your Ovo/ Fish.
There's no suitable tools there.
Sigh.
That tools need to be invented anew.
Yawn.
Have you Identified any?
...conceptually?
But... I already explained it to you -- all. What kind of tools would be needed. For a tech based on Evolution itself.
Yawn.
Like predators and prey? Competition for survival? Diseases?
???
Tests for evolutionary "fitness".
...to "weed out" incompetence.
...and bad "designs"
:P
Yap.
That's the main question.
And golden core of my approach.
Like.
There is no phlogistone...BUT, we still calculate how warms " flows" throught matter.
You really haven't got the foggiest idea, do you?
Do you even know what phlogiston theory really was? And how it was shown to be false?
I think he may be speaking of Caloric Theory, but I'll let Q speak for himself.
...the epistemes and paradigms of the ages. Reality tends to render all historically prevailing theories inadequate over time. Godel... ?
Ah, sorry, that was long-long ago, from some book physics for children.
And, English not my native, so I found correct word (caloric) only now.
Sorry about.
But still, my argument stands. While you, fell to ad hominem right away.
Is that ONLY modality of sentient discussion you capable to support?
//Godel... ?
Again.
It's incorrect to use Godel's discovery. That was about purely formal systems ONLY. Out of it designated scope of use (yet one example if non-understanding)
Yes... why "theory" (formal systems) never ultimately reach into an a consistently adequate formulation of "reality".
An argument for "experimental" physics over "theoretical" physics, although the two are the Yin and Yang of Science.
Answer can be simple and uninteresting -- our formal theories just NOT ENOUGH complex for that.
Another word -- we, not smart enough. ;P
But... you, do not want to became smarter. And demand it explained to you in layman terms and ASAP. (yet one example of non-understranding)
Yes, the Spartans were believed by other Greek tribes to be very profound/ Laconic. But then one could say that about cows, too.
Language was never meant to convey "information". It was meant (before the Pauline Inversion), as for cows, to enunciate my presence and glorify myself.
You may now wish to formulate a paean to me...
...or point me to another one of your "Spartan" informational droppings.
So it in your primary tongue. Google will translate it for me.
:-))))))))))))))))))0
Now go print me an Ovo "molecule"... ;p
It... do not work like that.
Go to Drexler. HE might be your ideal. Yawn.
He proposed his nano-tech in 80th. And still unable to deliver.
But... that is not a problem, but more like sweet-sweet feature, for you -- Progress WITHOUT progress. Yawn.
SOOOAW Lindy!
;-P
Nope. Capitalism and Control.
???
You like to criticize my views/ideas... but what is your ideas/views, I still dunno???
What Capitalism? American? European? China version?
Control??? Control of what? How? Wouldn't it be easier to control... pretty much anything, when you SMARTER, and have superior techs?
It's "universal"... the commodification of land, labour, capital, and now also, information.
"Smartness" is a commodity to be bought or sold by those with a storehouse of commodified capital (ala billionaires). Step out of line and like Tesla, you will be crushed... no matter how 'smart' you are... no matter how much better you "tech" is. Tesla was giving away his energy. He wasn't "controlling" it.
Just be happy that they'll pay you a "surplus salary" to steal/ use your 'smartness' for their profit.
It's all about controlling access to land, capital, labour, and information. And you're not in the "control club". Why do you think Putin's so angry?
His "credit card " read "insufficient funds".
His "energy stores" were black, NOT green. They were meant to stay in the ground to suit the "luxury values" club members aesthetics.
ESG - Environmental (aesthetic)... Sustainability (of control/aesthetic)... Governance (direct control).
That's the club.
The WEF.
The Davos men.
Your a "Tesla". You want to give tech away, not control it by Davos men and sell it.
SO go suck up to a Davos Man, or get crushed like Tesla did.
THAT's Lindy.
You're smart, even genius'. But you're a commodity (labour/ information) to be bought and sold.
Got a years victuals laid up in store? Capital... commodified?
;P
:P
"If you hold a hammer in your hand, everything around (might be?) looks like a nail to you".
Yawn.
Even the nails...
Post a Comment