[QUOTE=Zeke129;30888374]I don't like this I don't like this I don't like this I don't like this I don't like this
it isn't real quantum physics aren't real NO[/QUOTE]
It's okay. Take some heroin and it all makes sense..
[QUOTE=Quark:;30888417]It's okay. Take some heroin and it all makes sense..[/QUOTE]
I believe in jesus now
I am entangled with the LORD
the holy trinity is one of those superpositions
-snip- don't want to derail the thread
I said heroin not PCP silly
[QUOTE=Jurikuer;30887478]No offense or anything. But any bodies parents are at least 20 years behind on any education. I was smarter than my father in the 6th grade. And I learned how to use a computer before he did, and he bought us a custom built one!
Parents know a lot from the 80s or 70s. Not 2011.
Damn ninjas![/QUOTE]
Your parents might not know as much about science and technology because they aren't involved with it near as much as you are...but that doesn't make them less smart. Also, what was applicable in the 80s/70s is the same now. Nothing was taken away (besides some anti-gay mentality and racism) from what was going on, but stuff has definitely been added (technology). Sorry for raging on you but that was an ignorant ass thing to say and was the type of thing I thought in high school myself. They've got 20+ years of life experience and social interaction that you don't!!
[editline]4th July 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=aVoN;30888017]First of all you need to know the mathematical principles. Analysis I + II & Functional Analysis may help. Here you will learn basics of Series and their limies, complex Integrals and especially differential equations and Fourier transformations. Once you all got those basics, you are nearly ready to go for Schrödinger's Formalism (Wave-Machnic). Once you got this right, you should also know about Linear Algebra I to work with Heisenbergs Matrices-Mechanic (both - Schrödingers and Heisenbergs - Formalism are [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeomorphism]homeomorph[/url] so are equivalent for describing QM. But both have advantages and disadvantages in certain situations).
When you all got this, solve potentials like box-potentials and transforming a spatial Wavefunction to a momentum one. Once you those basics right, you are ready for more complex potentials like the harmonic oscillators and it's operators. At final, you can go for the hydrogen atom and maybe to the extended hydrogen-atom model with spin-orbit coupling, hyperfine splitting etc (which will require perturbation theory).
Just a little note: I studied 2 years of normal classical physics and the math for it before I've got my first contact with QM. The reason is, you can apply a lot of tricks you learned there later. Now I'm in year 5 and in the experimental quantum-optics sector (manipulating cold-atoms with light or vice-versa).
Good luck.[/QUOTE]
I really am behind/ahead on my Physics/Math. I took Calculus III and upper level physics classes at a college while I was still in high school and haven't taken any classes in the last 3 years at college because I tested out of them. Therefore, I remember learning a lot of the shit you mentioned but it's all vaguely familiar and I'll need some practice with it for it to come back.
Play Portal 2
This thread is fantastic.
[QUOTE=The BoxDog;30886977][img]http://images.betterworldbooks.com/031/The-Cosmic-Landscape-Susskind-Leonard-9780316013338.jpg[/img]
Read this
I read it earlier this year. helpful diagrams.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, so what kind of background is required for this book?
[QUOTE=adamjon858;30888389]The documentary I watched was very much so about the philosophical side of it. I thought it was quite strange and I didn't really like it which is why I want to know what quantum physics is REALLY about and what's really going on at a research level etc.
[editline]4th July 2011[/editline]
Any movie that posts a review of it as "A sleeper hit" on the front cover is a joke to begin with...for fucks sake.[/QUOTE]
Math. Probability, operators statistics and math math math. I'm writing my Bachelor about Quantum-Spin Statistics. It's math.
The fun and exciting thinf about uit is the interpretation of the results.
[QUOTE=Killuah;30888590]Math. Probability, operators statistics and math math math. I'm writing my Bachelor about Quantum-Spin Statistics. It's math.
The fun and exciting thinf about uit is the interpretation of the results.[/QUOTE]
Is the video Quark posted really the basis of quantum physics? (not the video itself, the subject matter)
In any case, despite it's cartoon nature it made me understand the double slit experiment much better than I had previously as well as it's significance.
Learn it and not learn it at the same time...
Instant Quantum Physics!
Study physics at college or university if your really want to get into it.
I took physics in college and it was my favourite subject, the concepts you learn in physics are incredible.
[QUOTE=BAZ;30888760]Study physics at college or university if your really want to get into it.
I took physics in college and it was my favourite subject, the concepts you learn in physics are incredible.[/QUOTE]
I didn't like my physics class and the department as a whole at my school is not that great.
This forum is great for finding all kinds of resources on physics subjects.
[url]http://www.physicsforums.com/index.php[/url]
[QUOTE=adamjon858;30888623]Is the video Quark posted really the basis of quantum physics? (not the video itself, the subject matter)
In any case, despite it's cartoon nature it made me understand the double slit experiment much better than I had previously as well as it's significance.[/QUOTE]
The photo-effect and the black radiatir spawned quantum physics if that's your question.
[QUOTE=Quark:;30886480][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh8uZUzuRhk[/media][/QUOTE]
The last bit blew my fucking mind.
Ow.
How, it's very simple
[QUOTE=adamjon858;30888623]Is the video Quark posted really the basis of quantum physics? (not the video itself, the subject matter)
In any case, despite it's cartoon nature it made me understand the double slit experiment much better than I had previously as well as it's significance.[/QUOTE]
The problem I have with these videos as well.as.almost any pop-science is that they don't really make people understand this stuff but rather makes them THINK they understand.
For instance electrons.
They are NOT tiny matter. If anything they are places were the solution of the wave function exists or(in terms of tunneling) has to exist.
You could also see.them as places of high charge density.
Anything but "tiny marbles"
That is wrong.
Then the whole "aware of being watched" deal. No. Just no.
If anything, thee experiment shows that the process of MEASURING something imfluences it.
In case of the wave function you collapse it into a real number by taking it's absolute or using an operator on it. That gives you impulse or energy or time or location.
In any case you lose solutions by doing that and that's why you don't get interference when "watching" it. Because the act of measuring is an interaction.
[editline]4th July 2011[/editline]
Sorry for.typos.i am at my mobile.
[QUOTE=Killuah;30889043]The problem I have with these videos as well.as.almost any pop-science is that they don't really make people understand this stuff but rather makes them THINK they understand.
For instance electrons.
They are NOT tiny matter. If anything they are places were the solution of the wave function exists or(in terms of tunneling) has to exist.
You could also see.them as places of high charge density.
Anything but "tiny marbles"
That is wrong.
Then the whole "aware of being watched" deal. No. Just no.
If anything, thee experiment shows that the process of MEASURING something imfluences it.
In case of the wave function you collapse it into a real number by taking it's absolute or using an operator on it. That gives you impulse or energy or time or location.
In any case you lose solutions by doing that and that's why you don't get interference when "watching" it. Because the act of measuring is an interaction.
[editline]4th July 2011[/editline]
Sorry for.typos.i am at my mobile.[/QUOTE]
I learned about quantum physics on my own when I was about... 14 or so. The stuff I learned for about 90% of my first semester at uni was stuff I already knew years ago, but towards the end of the semester we started to touch on new stuff I wasn't 100% familiar with.
When I was like 15 or 16 I tried clearing up some issues I was having with some concept with a physics teacher at my high school and he was 100% certain that electrons were physical, ball like particles particles (like marbles). But it seems he was wrong and I was right. If you treat them as particles and not waves they're point particles. No height, no width, no length... no volume. Yet... they're still there.
Of course when you treat them as waves that whole situation changes, though.
[QUOTE=aVoN;30888017]First of all you need to know the mathematical principles. Analysis I + II & Functional Analysis may help. Here you will learn basics of Series and their limies, complex Integrals and especially differential equations and Fourier transformations. Once you all got those basics, you are nearly ready to go for Schrödinger's Formalism (Wave-Machnic). Once you got this right, you should also know about Linear Algebra I to work with Heisenbergs Matrices-Mechanic (both - Schrödingers and Heisenbergs - Formalism are [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeomorphism]homeomorph[/url] so are equivalent for describing QM. But both have advantages and disadvantages in certain situations).
When you all got this, solve potentials like box-potentials and transforming a spatial Wavefunction to a momentum one. Once you those basics right, you are ready for more complex potentials like the harmonic oscillators and it's operators. At final, you can go for the hydrogen atom and maybe to the extended hydrogen-atom model with spin-orbit coupling, hyperfine splitting etc (which will require perturbation theory).
Just a little note: I studied 2 years of normal classical physics and the math for it before I've got my first contact with QM. The reason is, you can apply a lot of tricks you learned there later. Now I'm in year 5 and in the experimental quantum-optics sector (manipulating cold-atoms with light or vice-versa).
Good luck.[/QUOTE]
Whilst that's impressive, you don't need all that background, I think it depends what exactly you're interested in when it comes to QM. I came across wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle at A level and quantum wells and band gap structures, tunneling and other quantum phenomena related to semi-conductor materials in my first year of university, with none of that background.
I also feel if it deeply interests you, you should sod all the background maths (because you probably arent actually interested enough in it to learn anything if you cannot see the appllication) and start finding some books on the subject. If you come across maths you cannot work through, you can always go back and look it up. A slightly abstract application of this being again my university course. A bunch of us decided we wanted to build a USB storage oscilloscope and at that stage none of us knew shit about things like how to make a high impedance front end or a high frequency filters and whether we should go for one with no amplitude attenuation or one with no phase change. If you are really interested in something you can find out the supporting background material as you go along.
Although agreed, if he wants to make a career out of QM your suggestions are correct, just for interest, what you suggest is far too intensive.
Am I the only one that loves all the "weird" (weird only because we are not used to them) things in Quantum Physics? Love the way the bend the "normal" concept of reality.
Maybe I should take Physics instead of Nanotechnology at Uni...
Go to university.
[QUOTE=acds;30889420]Am I the only one that loves all the "weird" (weird only because we are not used to them) things in Quantum Physics? Love the way the bend the "normal" concept of reality.
Maybe I should take Physics instead of Nanotechnology at Uni...[/QUOTE]
I'm doing [i]both[/i] :dance:
Double degree in nanotech and applied science (however that applied science B.Sc is most likely gonna lead me on to a theoretical physics Ph.D.)
[QUOTE=Quark:;30886402]Honestly, try this out -
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc[/media][/QUOTE]
That's actually really fucking interesting. I think I learnt this at A level, but this makes it a lot more memorable.
... Everything I know about quantum physics I've learnt mostly from wikipedia. Unfortunately, it's not a proper understanding.
I can toss around phrases like "wave-particle duality" but I still lack a proper concrete understanding of the phrase. I know it's why the double-slit experiment works though.
But yeah, if you really want to learn, go read that shit up on wikipedia.
[QUOTE=Quark:;30886480]I've learned more on the internet than I did in 12th grade
[editline]4th July 2011[/editline]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh8uZUzuRhk[/media][/QUOTE]
Is this really true? I seem to recall that entanglements are really difficult to keep and maintain.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;30890235]Is this really true? I seem to recall that entanglements are really difficult to keep and maintain.[/QUOTE]
It's explained really simply and weirdly. As far as I know, if two electrons are entangled, when you know the spin of one, you know the spin of the other as well.
I don't see how this is "information" though. It's like having two boxes and picking one box at random to put a coin in. Then you take the boxes really far away from each other. Open either box and you know what's inside the other as well.
Fuck it I'm going to make Dr Quantum in Champions Online now.
[QUOTE=Wavenarra;30890135]... Everything I know about quantum physics I've learnt mostly from wikipedia. Unfortunately, it's not a proper understanding.
I can toss around phrases like "wave-particle duality" but I still lack a proper concrete understanding of the phrase. I know it's why the double-slit experiment works though.
But yeah, if you really want to learn, go read that shit up on wikipedia.[/QUOTE]
The way I see it, for a topic as complex as wave particle duality, or the Schrödinger equation, or Quantum Electrodynamics, or anything like that: only someone who understood the topic 100% could pull off a fraudulent edit and make it look legitimate. However anyone with such knowledge on the subject is probably gonna respect it too much to both misleading people in the first place.
So, unless something is [i]very obviously[/i] incorrect it's probably all right.
You can't send any information with entanglement.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.