Recent content by weirdoguy

Well, I read one book on history of QM (Duncan, part 1) and I don't know how non physicist could understand any of it.

Unfortunately, I'm not talking about uncertainty principle besides this sentence: I gave explicitly the definition of what I (and most textbooks) call uncertainty, and to use it in experimental context (as OP wants) one calculates the variance of a large number of measurements of single...

Yes, it means average of measurement data. And for only one measurement, this average is the measured value. Hence uncertainty is zero.

Do you understand the definition of uncertainty? Do you know what variance is? What standard deviation is? I gave you the only definion we need, why won't you calculate yourself? You are a victim of bad popularizations, which say a lot of nonsense about uncertainty principle. When to understand...

Because it gives zero for single measurement. Do the math, it's simple. For single measurement: ##\langle\hat{p}\rangle^2=p^2=\langle\hat{p}^2\rangle##. What do you get when you insert that in the definition of uncertainty? It says no such thing. It's the definition of uncertainty.

Uncertainty is not about how exact is a single measurement. Uncertainty is defined as: ##\Delta p=\sqrt{\langle\hat{p}^2\rangle-\langle\hat{p}\rangle^2}##, so for a single measurement it gives 0. You have to have at least two measurements to make it non-zero. And how exact these measurements are...

There is no such thing in physics, so I think you should reconsider what you are working on :wink: Anyways, welcome to PF!

Useful for whom? I'm a physicist and I don't find it useful at all. And it's because: They are doing geophysics! And it's very specific area of physics. And you seem to be thinking that what they do is cool for general physics. It's not.

Yep, I have it :oldbiggrin: Thank you.

Can you tell which book is it from? Or maybe in which year it appeared on the olympiad (if it did).

No, as is explicitly stated in wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_box#Momentum_wave_function And also was explicitly said in what you quoted :wink:

Yes, and based on that and ALL your posts and threads @Simon F , I don't really think you understand what they are talking about. You have some weird obsession about Coriolis, but nothing you cite agrees with what you are trying to say (or at least I think you are trying to say): that physicists...

I don't even think that what you do with your experiments (with so many complexities and variables) is covered in any textbook. I am worried though that you think you're doing something against 'mainstream", because you don't, so: Because 99,99% of people who think they discovered something...

They do, as ##a^x## clearly shows. But you blindly run around the most simple problem with the most simple solution.

Yeah, I had all of them because of that (I was not interested in all the topics that some of those volumes covered). But I sold most of the books that I didn't use, and I definitely didn't use any of LL books.