Jeanway 0 Posted June 12, 2004 OK, if you had a problem { P }, and you were trying to determine what it was, you try to test the X and the Y to see if they might be. But you find the problem still persists. How would you determine 'P'? It's obvious X and Y aren't the P. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WEAREBORG4102 0 Posted June 12, 2004 I think that goes along the lines of single-variable calculus... No, seriously... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeanway 0 Posted June 12, 2004 I think that goes along the lines of single-variable calculus... No, seriously... And why wouldn't I think you were serious? i was thinking more on the lines of quantum physics Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WEAREBORG4102 0 Posted June 12, 2004 No, I'm serious... It can be calculated though calculus... but it would take years to calculate.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WEAREBORG4102 0 Posted June 12, 2004 So I'm a student? Actually I am but not hers... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeanway 0 Posted June 13, 2004 SO WHY CAN'T A COMPUTER DO IT? It is possible, based on contingences and cancelling out, right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nik 0 Posted June 13, 2004 OK, if you had a problem { P }, and you were trying to determine what it was, you try to test the X and the Y to see if they might be. But you find the problem still persists. How would you determine 'P'? It's obvious X and Y aren't the P. Hmmm.... This sounds difficult. I presume that you mean that if one has a problem, one does not mathematically try to find out what the problem is, but rather it's solution, right? You also alluded to a solution in terms of quantum mechanics. In that case, P is conventionally used to denote the square of a quantum mechanical (Q.M.) wavefunction - what some of us refer to as the 'norm' of the wave function, and your notation "{P}" is reminiscent of the "old style" notation (before we had nice typesetting and math fonts) of this. However, perhaps you could be a bit more specific. Although I'm not too bright about this sort of stuff, if we take the approach of quantum mechanics, solutions for a wavefunction norm can be very difficult. Determining the wave function of a particle can be done using what's calle the Schrodinger equation (or the Fermi-Dirac equation if particle spin is a necessary consideration). Either is a second order linear differential equation in position and time. However, the difficulty comes in the solution. College textbooks today concentrate on very specific solutions to very simple problems with the Schrodinger equation, and most of these don't involve the time ordinate, i.e., the "steady state" solution. Less specific solutions involve approximations - things like the WKB approximation, Born approximation, variational approach, and perturbation theory (a few things for you to look up). In practice, solutions are not so simple. However, scientists take advantage of the "Existence and Uniquness Theorem." Put simply, if you find A solution, you've found THE solution. We break solutions of the equation down into "basis" states - simple solutions to a very specific state of a Q.M. particle, and the solution of the problem in question is then a sum of these states. The problem is still determining what the basis states are. An example is determining the wavefunctions of nucleons in a nucleus. For Hydrogen and Helium, this is not too hard. However, for the rest it gets difficult as each nucleon affects the others. The wave functions can be extremely complicated, so we say that they are sums of these simple "basis" states (or orbitals as they are sometimes referred to in nuclear physics). The big difficulty is that the basis states are still not greatly understood, and - in current models - there are thousands of these states. We solve such solutions by letting a computer try various solutions until it gets one that "minimizes" the energy. (It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the general idea.) Did I assume correctly that this was the question you were asking, Jeanway, or am I completely off track? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WEAREBORG4102 0 Posted June 13, 2004 (edited) that sounds like what she was talking about... But I don't know... But then you have tio account for the uncertainty principle... Edited June 13, 2004 by WEAREBORG4102 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeanway 0 Posted June 13, 2004 (edited) Simply put if you work through the progression of contingencies eventually you will find P, you have to. It's just a matter of finding how the links connect by way of conversion. A computer could do this, it's only logical, why are you being so negative? Sorry I sound so arcahic with my terminology but this is a simple problem the solution is the complicated part, agree? Edited June 13, 2004 by Jeanway Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WEAREBORG4102 0 Posted June 13, 2004 Well then you just have solved the ultimate reality... the problem is everything.... It is also how you define reality. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeanway 0 Posted June 14, 2004 Wait til Fen gets ahold of this, he'll figure it out and reduce it to it's lowest common denominator and get eveybody laughing about it too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WEAREBORG4102 0 Posted June 14, 2004 you sure it would have an LCD? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeanway 0 Posted June 14, 2004 I guess that would depend on P now wouldn't it WAB if had and LCD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fenriz275 0 Posted June 15, 2004 I think she's talking about trial and error, like if you've got a big bunch of wires and you need to find the live one so you bite them one by one by one until you get a jolt, you may be singed but now you know which one is P. :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeanway 0 Posted June 15, 2004 So, what are you saying then? Biting the live one is P? :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nik 0 Posted June 18, 2004 Simply put if you work through the progression of contingencies eventually you will find P, you have to. You know, this is a problem that has perplexed Quantum Mechanics (both the subject and the actual mechanics - the people who work with quanta - no they don't have grease under their fingernails and tags on their shirts that say "Earl" and "Bubba" but they do call themselves "mechanics"). Cycling through the set of contingencies is the easy part. It's knowing what the contingencies are that is difficult. In a general vague sort of way, many quantum mechanics just use all the contingencies they can think of. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeanway 0 Posted June 18, 2004 OK, nik, listen to me, LOOK AT ME WHEN I'M TALKING TO YOU!!!!! Now go find SHADOWFIGMENT'S SIGNATURE. And you tell me if this isn't what we are talking about. THATS what got me started on this. Please reply and bring it back here with you MISTER, or you'll be in BIG TROUBLE!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fenriz275 0 Posted June 18, 2004 Simply put if you work through the progression of contingencies eventually you will find P, you have to. You know, this is a problem that has perplexed Quantum Mechanics (both the subject and the actual mechanics - the people who work with quanta - no they don't have grease under their fingernails and tags on their shirts that say "Earl" and "Bubba" but they do call themselves "mechanics"). Cycling through the set of contingencies is the easy part. It's knowing what the contingencies are that is difficult. In a general vague sort of way, many quantum mechanics just use all the contingencies they can think of. So what you're saying is that rather than throw one dart at a bullseye they throw as many as they possibly can at the wall instead, hoping one of them hits the mark? Is that it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nik 0 Posted June 18, 2004 Simply put if you work through the progression of contingencies eventually you will find P, you have to. You know, this is a problem that has perplexed Quantum Mechanics (both the subject and the actual mechanics - the people who work with quanta - no they don't have grease under their fingernails and tags on their shirts that say "Earl" and "Bubba" but they do call themselves "mechanics"). Cycling through the set of contingencies is the easy part. It's knowing what the contingencies are that is difficult. In a general vague sort of way, many quantum mechanics just use all the contingencies they can think of. So what you're saying is that rather than throw one dart at a bullseye they throw as many as they possibly can at the wall instead, hoping one of them hits the mark? Is that it? Yeah, that's a pretty good analogy! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeanway 0 Posted June 18, 2004 No, No, No it's not! Your talking the shotgun approach. My theory is more like centrifical force!! All that's left is P. Understand? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nik 0 Posted June 18, 2004 No, No, No it's not! Your talking the shotgun approach. My theory is more like centrifical force!! All that's left is P. Understand? "Centrifugal force" is like a swear word in physics. What quantum mechanics do is not exactly like the shotgun approach, as each solution is "weighted," but it is pretty close. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeanway 0 Posted June 18, 2004 WELL!!! :: she says indignantly:: I never!!!! You BIG BABOON!!! ::WALKS OUT HE DOOR AND SLAMS IT BEHIND HER:: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fenriz275 0 Posted June 18, 2004 No, No, No it's not! Your talking the shotgun approach. My theory is more like centrifical force!! All that's left is P. Understand? "Centrifugal force" is like a swear word in physics. What quantum mechanics do is not exactly like the shotgun approach, as each solution is "weighted," but it is pretty close. Now I have the image in my head of a guy with some tweezers and a scale weighing individual pieces of buckshot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
