next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects --Apple-Mail-20--847314922 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Hi all: Quantum mechanics is statistical by its very nature. That is one of the reasons some of its concepts are hard to grasp, and why one often has to "unlearn" some things before one gain progress. For example, in my first-year astronomy course, when I am covering the basics of science, and how it works, I often show them this image and ask them what it is: http://myweb.dal.ca/pmkelly/ABCD.jpg Take a guess, then scroll down and see if you were right! Many students will say it as an atom, or a carbon atom, or an electron. In fact I have yet to have someone tell me that it is a model of an atom. Here are some more models of atoms. http://myweb.dal.ca/pmkelly/ABCDE.jpg While note comes close to showing what a real atoms looks like, the ones at the upper right and lower left come the closest. The electron is not "orbiting" like the Earth orbits tho Sun. Instead it has a certain probability of being in different areas around the nucleus. And at this scale, you can never know for sure both exactly where it is and which way it is moving because the very act of observing it changes its properties. So at that level, everything is statistical. Pat On Mar 9, 2008, at 3:50 PM, Kent Mullin wrote: > Hi All, > > Well said David, my sentiments exactly. It is commonly accepted that > one can prove anything with statistics, but I often wonder if the same > isn't true of quantum mechanics as well. > > K. > > > On 6-Mar-08, at 8:25 PM, David & Alison Webster wrote: > >> Hi All, Mar 6, 2008 >> I am wondering if this talk was initially scheduled for Apr 1. >> >> And, if I follow this correctly, tides are caused by too many >> people looking at the conditional moon that otherwise would be absent >> and therefore unable to exert a gravitational force. And the Bay of >> Fundy, with record tidal range, is I suppose the epicenter of >> Moonstruckosity. >> >> And this explains the Buddist Hmm-mmmmmmm. >> >> But, all things considered, it is a relief to know that all those >> things which I don't see (such as hyperbolic functions), don't exist >> after all. >> Yt, DW, Kentville > > ======================================================================== == Patrick Kelly Director of Computer Facilities ======================================================================== == Faculty of Architecture and Planning Dalhousie University ======================================================================== == PO Box 1000 Stn Central 5410 Spring Garden Road Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2X4 Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2X4 Canada Canada ======================================================================== == Phone:(902) 494-3294 FAX:(902) 423-6672 E-mail:patrick.kelly@dal.ca ======================================================================== == --Apple-Mail-20--847314922 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII Hi all: Quantum mechanics is statistical by its very nature. That is one of the reasons some of its concepts are hard to grasp, and why one often has to "unlearn" some things before one gain progress. For example, in my first-year astronomy course, when I am covering the basics of science, and how it works, I often show them this image and ask them what it is: http://myweb.dal.ca/pmkelly/ABCD.jpg Take a guess, then scroll down and see if you were right! Many students will say it as an atom, or a carbon atom, or an electron. In fact I have yet to have someone tell me that it is a <bold>model</bold> of an atom. Here are some more models of atoms. http://myweb.dal.ca/pmkelly/ABCDE.jpg While note comes close to showing what a <bold>real</bold> atoms looks like, the ones at the upper right and lower left come the closest. The electron is not "orbiting" like the Earth orbits tho Sun. Instead it has a certain probability of being in different areas around the nucleus. And at this scale, you can never know for sure both exactly where it is and which way it is moving because the very act of observing it changes its properties. So at that level, everything is statistical. Pat On Mar 9, 2008, at 3:50 PM, Kent Mullin wrote: <excerpt>Hi All, Well said David, my sentiments exactly. It is commonly accepted that one can prove anything with statistics, but I often wonder if the same isn't true of quantum mechanics as well. K. On 6-Mar-08, at 8:25 PM, David & Alison Webster wrote: <excerpt>Hi All, Mar 6, 2008 I am wondering if this talk was initially scheduled for Apr 1. And, if I follow this correctly, tides are caused by too many people looking at the conditional moon that otherwise would be absent and therefore unable to exert a gravitational force. And the Bay of Fundy, with record tidal range, is I suppose the epicenter of Moonstruckosity. And this explains the Buddist Hmm-mmmmmmm. But, all things considered, it is a relief to know that all those things which I don't see (such as hyperbolic functions), don't exist after all. Yt, DW, Kentville </excerpt> </excerpt><fontfamily><param>Courier</param> ========================================================================== Patrick Kelly Director of Computer Facilities ========================================================================== Faculty of Architecture and Planning Dalhousie University ========================================================================== PO Box 1000 Stn Central 5410 Spring Garden Road Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2X4 Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2X4 Canada Canada ========================================================================== Phone:(902) 494-3294 FAX:(902) 423-6672 E-mail:patrick.kelly@dal.ca ========================================================================== </fontfamily> --Apple-Mail-20--847314922--
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects