{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
原先发布于：Secular Sevens
7/29/2013 6:18:22 AM
18
Well I think you have to look at the atom itself and look at the electron shell. Because the electron shell could allow you to find the other quantum numbers for the particular atom. You have numbers represented as n, l, ml, and ms. The last quantum number is applied to quantum spin and its dependent on preceding values. To my understand, the spin is clockwise or counterclockwise based on the preceding variables. I don't really think observation point matters, but we never delved that deep into it. I still don't think your point of observation is relevant though.
English
-
It doesn't make any sense. Electrons aren't even at a single place, so no matter how you observe it it will seem like its everywhere simultaneously. The only way to approximate its locational with percentage certainty is with the uncertainty principle. When you apply the quantum numbers, you basically have a set quantity (+/- 1/2). Why would the angular momentum changed based on how you look at it?
-
Yes, I've read up on the probability wave. Yet, from what I gather the particle "chooses" its location when it is observed. I never passed up on any statement saying it was everywhere at once after being observed, only when it isn't being observed is it in the state of uncertainty. Thanks for helping, I greatly appreciate it.
-
" But if you measure an electron's spin about any randomly chosen axis, you never find a fractional amount of spin. Ever. It's as if the measurement itself forces the electron to gather together all of its spinning motion and direct it to be either clockwise or counterclockwise about the axis you happened to have focused on. Moreover, because of your measurement's influence on the electron's spin, you lose the ability to determine how it was spinning about a horizontal axis, about a back-and-forth axis, or about any other axis, prior to your measurement." That is what is stumping me.
-
Sorry for bogging you down and wasting your time with these questions but I thoroughly enjoy learning about topics I don't know much about. We can't measure both at once , precisely, due to how movement doesn't really correlate with speed at a specific moment in time, right?
-
I don't mind. I can't really tell you why we can't measure both at once from a practical perspective, though, because I haven't really done enough proper study of the area in that way - all I can really say with confidence is that you can't measure them because, within the incredibly well-verified mathematical formalisation of quantum mechanics, measuring one and then measuring the other will give you a different result to the other way around.
-
I take it you are enjoying it, no? As I am still just a second semester Freshman, I still could change my major. I am majoring in Computer Science as of now and they do have an option to where I could major in Computer Science and minor in Physics. I am deeply interested in that route.
-
When I get to do subjects like quantum mechanics, I absolutely love it; when I have to do thermodynamics, it's usually tedious at best. That said, on the whole, I definitely recommend it. It's rewarding in a way the less fundamental subjects, though interesting, tend not to approach. At least, in my experience.
