Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Does the quantum state have a vibrational frequency?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Try being nicer.


Lead the way. One approach to being nice is to keep the ATS tidy and avoid repeatedly posting something so wrong, so silly, that it crosses into the realm of retarded.


Sometimes, I get the facts wrong just to watch you stomp around and go roar.


Of course! That's my attitude towards people who are so exceedingly lazy (would be excusable if you were a genius, but you are not), that they can't be bothered to spend a minute and half researching stuff, and instead proceed to manufacture ridiculous, wrong, laughable posts on some topic in physics - makes me wonder why, actually.


It never fails.


It never will. When I see lazy, I say lazy, and when I see statements incompatible with facts, I say so as well. If you are asking for my complicity in promoting idiocy on ATS, I decline.
edit on 2-12-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


From what I remember reading about the quantum state; the energy levels are directly limited to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. But I think it can only be mathematically predicted based on probability, not directly measured. Try looking into the uncertainty principle. Ill check it out when I get a chance.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dynamike
reply to post by dominicus
 


From what I remember reading about the quantum state; the energy levels are directly limited to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.


I'm very sorry but you are wrong. The Heisenberg principle does not provide solution for the eigenvalues (or even hints of same), so you can't possibly be right.


Ill check it out when I get a chance.


Please do! Just pay attention. Frankly, QM is one beast of a science. I mean it.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


So what is your opinion? Does the quantum state have a vibrational frequency?



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


So what is your opinion? Does the quantum state have a vibrational frequency?


I wouldn't call it "vibrational" but if you look at the time dependent Schroedinger equation and the Hamiltonian has no time dependence you have a exp(-i \omega t) for the phase of the wavefunction.

Classically phase isn't directly observable (only squared magnitudes) but it does influence interference patterns which can result in observable effects. So the absolute frequency isn't observable (and that is an arbitrary reference) but frequency differences can be.

So, yes, like all other wave equations of physics there can be oscillatory behavior.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


So what is your opinion? Does the quantum state have a vibrational frequency?


See mbkennel's response above.

To speak of quantum states as "vibrational" is retarded, that's for starters. I mean, simpletons will probably swallow it, because remember? They like "frequency", "field" and "vibration".



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



To speak of quantum states as "vibrational" is retarded, that's for starters. I mean, simpletons will probably swallow it, because remember? They like "frequency", "field" and "vibration".


If those simpletons are still around, then someone didn't do a very good job of correcting them. And any educated person knows that using the word "retarded" as an adjective for anyone who isn't literally mentally retarded is another way of saying, "I can't think of a constructive way to describe this system of thinking, so I'll just insult it."

Again, poor job of correcting them.
edit on 17-12-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


"quantum state
n
(Physics / Atomic Physics) Physics a state of a system characterized by a set of quantum numbers and represented by an eigenfunction. The energy of each state is precise within the limits imposed by the uncertainty principle but may be changed by applying a field of force. States that have the same energy are called degenerate See also energy level."

Quantum State

I don't have the complete answer yet but I don't think I was completely wrong in my statement. Still going to look into it more when I get a chance.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



To speak of quantum states as "vibrational" is retarded, that's for starters. I mean, simpletons will probably swallow it, because remember? They like "frequency", "field" and "vibration".


If those simpletons are still around, then someone didn't do a very good job of correcting them.


Or maybe they did, but it didn't work.


Otto West: Don't call me stupid.
Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto West: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement.



And any educated person knows that using the word "retarded" as an adjective for anyone who isn't literally mentally retarded is another way of saying, "I can't think of a constructive way to describe this system of thinking, so I'll just insult it."

Again, poor job of correcting them.
edit on 17-12-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


That's right, we shouldn't insult those with biological developmental problems---they usually work hard at learning what comes easier to others. That's awesome.

Other than that-----the point is that a disappointingly high fraction of people find it cool to be ignorant and sling about "frequency" "field" and "vibration" in wooish and unclear ways, when they actually refer to specific concepts that mean something specific. And yes, it does take some effort and work to know where it comes from, and knowing this is good, since a few hundred years of this separates all of our lives from being short, nasty, cold, infectious and brutish.

Laymen don't tend to do this with, for example "genome" or "vitamin" or "molecule". If they start blabbing about "genetic" this or "genetic" that when it doesn't actually have to do with genetics as science knows it, they'll quickly be criticized and they'll STFU.

When it's "field" "vibration" or "frequency", then the people who actually know science get slagged as narrow-minded pedantic losers not in touch with their spiritual nature who are keeping humanity down, or some junk like that like that.
edit on 17-12-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-12-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I found news about a breakthrough of Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle. Apparently knowing ones quantum state without disturbing it will be a physical possibility and not just a theoretical. Perhaps your answer is around the corner.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Dynamike
 


Thanks. There is a better link. Interesting to see what comes out of it. The quantum-mechanical formalism that is required to describe the whole system is likely to be quite complex, so let's see what the theorists will have to say.
edit on 21-12-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Dynamike
 


Why would anyone want to look into a study with the word 'uncertainty'? This post matters.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dynamike
I found news about a breakthrough of Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle. Apparently knowing ones quantum state without disturbing it will be a physical possibility and not just a theoretical. Perhaps your answer is around the corner.


It's complete BS and these people don't understand quantum mechanics. Their argument is like saying that you can make millions of dollars by, when you do your budget, writing +$1,000,000 at the end. Sadly, it does not work that way. No physicists take this seriously.

The rest of the thread is nonsense, too, but that's already been discussed...



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by Dynamike
I found news about a breakthrough of Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle. Apparently knowing ones quantum state without disturbing it will be a physical possibility and not just a theoretical. Perhaps your answer is around the corner.


It's complete BS and these people don't understand quantum mechanics. Their argument is like saying that you can make millions of dollars by, when you do your budget, writing +$1,000,000 at the end. Sadly, it does not work that way. No physicists take this seriously.


I am a physicist and I won't reject it automatically, without reading the paper.


The rest of the thread is nonsense, too, but that's already been discussed...


Oh, that... I agree with...



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I am a physicist and I won't reject it automatically, without reading the paper.


Then you should take a refresher course on linear algebra and PDEs because the uncertainty theorem is not only ridiculously general, but is a theorem that depends on very little of the structure of quantum mechanics, and cannot be circumvented without totally destroying the entire structure, as a theorem.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I am a physicist and I won't reject it automatically, without reading the paper.


Then you should take a refresher course on linear algebra and PDEs because the uncertainty theorem is not only ridiculously general, but is a theorem that depends on very little of the structure of quantum mechanics, and cannot be circumvented without totally destroying the entire structure, as a theorem.


I would love to take a refresher course on linear algebra and PDEs, but regardless, I guess I didn't make myself clear - one has to really understand what and how was measured in that experiment. It may be that "violation of uncertainty principle" may be a simplified way of expressing an observation in a really complex and subtle apparatus. I didn't have time to read the paper in detail.

And please take a refresher course on how to format links on this board, because they are broken in your post.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 



When it's "field" "vibration" or "frequency", then the people who actually know science get slagged as narrow-minded pedantic losers not in touch with their spiritual nature who are keeping humanity down, or some junk like that like that.


Well, you certainly don't give me the impression of a narrow-minded pedantic loser. You strike me as a bright individual fully willing to work with a broad range of characters, because you understand completely that even the dullest of cretins can reveal the key to an investigative process capable of blowing the lid off of some mystery or another. It's happened before.

Just because a fish can't climb a tree, doesn't mean it's stupid. And just because that water is of a different nature than the tree, doesn't mean they're not connected in many subtle and significant ways. And so, one man's understanding of a subject in relation to another subject could cast just the right sparkle to catch a slight nuance that changes our understanding of reality. But of course, you already knew that.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by mbkennel
 



When it's "field" "vibration" or "frequency", then the people who actually know science get slagged as narrow-minded pedantic losers not in touch with their spiritual nature who are keeping humanity down, or some junk like that like that.


Well, you certainly don't give me the impression of a narrow-minded pedantic loser.


How do you know that "mbkennel" is a loser? It seems like he has a functional and productive brain, which many people put to good use, and so he's a contrast to the sad and stupid "vibrational frequency levitating pyramid toroid" crowd.


Just because a fish can't climb a tree, doesn't mean it's stupid.


But if a person eschews every possibility of advancing their knowledge (and opportunities are ample in modern world), than such person is indeed a stupid schmuck.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


I wish I had your knowledge of the topic. Sadly I am merely a cop who dreams of being a quantum physicist. Thus, the only knowledge I can gather is mostly ideological data that has been smoothed out and dumbed down by other physicists as a hobby.

I do like to see these theories put to the physical test. I find it hard to rely on purely mathematical theorems because in reality, our understanding of math is solely based upon the physical world around us. We are able to predict some conjecture of the universes hidden areas with a great amount of accuracy, I must admit. But math is just the blue print of what is out there, and we dont always know what were looking for or even what we are looking at without seeing these things in action, not just in theorems.

And then sometimes it seems like we create math for things that dont even exist. For instance, (just making something up off of the top of my head) what if we are searching for a mathematical unifying theory when one does not exist? What if it is all based on perspective or dimension. For instance what if all forces interacted with each other differently on depending on what dimension it is influencing. That means the mathematical theory of each force changes based on perspective. Ok, I guess thats a bad example because if that were true then there would technically still be a theory of everything.

OK my point is that we may have to physically explore more and gain a better perspective of the universe to truly say weather or not a theorem is right.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join