Comment on Observer
andros_rex@lemmy.world 1 week agoTbh, I think no one who hasn’t solved the Schrödinger equation at least once (at least time independent), should be allowed to talk about quantum.
Like, the uncertainty principle is really really fucking cool when you understand why it works mathematically. But without differential equations and linear algebra, I don’t think it’s possible to really conceptualize what’s going on in quantum.
Idk, I always try to explain to students the deficiencies of the Bohr model and explain the significance of the electron cloud, but probability is hard.
One of my favorite things in quantum was deriving the “quantum numbers” they have you memorize in chemistry (if you don’t remember, you probably got a SPeeDy F) It’s beautiful to watch the way they emerge from the second order diff eq.
While I’m rusty as hell, my physics degree was actually focused quite a lot into QM.
It’s perfectly possible to get a reasonable understanding of what’s going on without going head first into the maths. There are definitely areas however that we don’t have a good conceptual model of yet. For those, the maths definitely leads the way. 90% of QM is comprehendible with relatively little maths. You only need the maths when you start to get predictive.
I don’t think you can get the intuitive feel/the “why” without the maths.
I guess I get frustrated when I have to teach algebra based introductory physics for similar reasons - everything makes so much more sense when you understand how the pieces fit together. (Why make them memorize d=d0+v0t+1/2at^2 when all that is integrating a constant twice? That you can set v=0 to find the time of maximum height, because you’re using a derivative to find a max! And then that helps you get why it works, and then even how to possibly explore non constant acceleration!)
I got really fucked over because I didn’t take linear (at all - advising in my physics department was non existent which lead to things like taking classical before Diff Eq lol) and so things like eigenvalues - which tbh I think is kinda the money shot - that things end up quantized and discrete - that took a while for me to get what that meant.
I find QM quite confusing, in that one can observe only the eigenvalues and not the state itself. Why is it specifically, or is this wrong conceptualization? Also, how does particle-ness relate to the eigenvalues?
Eigenvalues come from linear algebra. I think a difficult think in general with understanding them is often the failure of most middle/high school math teachers to teach matrix operations at all. (I’m guessing because matrix multiplication never shows up on SAT/ACT). Here’s a good explanation for the math on finding eigenvalues and eigenvectors.
But basically eigenvalues are going to be associated with certain matrixes/vectors. You take a “Hamiltonian” of a system, which is a way of describing possible energy values in the system, and it’ll give you a set of possible answers - pairs of eigenvalues and eigenvectors that describe the system.
In effect - you get things like the quantum numbers. That the 1st energy level has 1 subshell can hold 2 electrons, both with opposing spins. That the 2nd energy level has a 2s subshell that holds two, that 2p holds six. You get your n (1st energy level, 2nd so on as you go down periods of the periodicity table), l (subshell - don’t get a SPeeDy F), m (which breaks down where in the subshell they are) and the need for opposing spins.
pcalau12i@lemmygrad.ml 1 day ago
I don’t think solving the Schrodinger equation really gives you a good idea of why quantum mechanics is even interesting. You also shouldstudy very specific applications of it where it yields counterintuitive outcomes to see why it is interesting, such as in the GHZ experiment.