Why Do Many Physical Phenomena Exhibit Wave Behavior?

[Mentz114]

Facinating. On something of a side question, what is probability? I look it up in the dictionary and I get something about the Monte Carlo method. So why does a roulette wheel model--or dice, or whatever, appear central to quantum mechanics? It's a bit peculiar explaining quantum mechanics in terms of Newtonian models to me.

It's worse than you think - the wave in QM is 'probability ampiltude' which is like a square-root of probability. But, the classical laws are recovered in the limit with QM as you can see in any course in basic QM.

 

[Phrak]

Mentz, do you have any thoughts on the subject? In the mathematical discription, you've got this probabiliy function showing up in stark contrast to other mathematical elements.

In one way of looking at it, it's value is 'acausal', or in a mechanistic approach, and in the language of information theory, the value obtained is a 'reduction in ignorance'.

Sorry, I don't seem to have the words to do this stuff justice...

---------

Concerning waves, I seem to have a somewhat different view. Many things have first and second derviaties in space and time. The appearance of the time derivatives makes them noticable to us because they move. Even more noticable because they can still move when the source of the disturbance is displaced in space and time; box(A)=0.

 

[Mentz114]

Mentz, do you have any thoughts on the subject?

I don't believe the wave-function or the probability amplitudes exist in the way an electric field or an atom exist. Millions of words have been used on the interpretation of QM and this is not the place to add to the tally.

I don't think I understand your other remarks.

 

[Phrak]

I don't believe the wave-function or the probability amplitudes exist in the way an electric field or an atom exist. Millions of words have been used on the interpretation of QM and this is not the place to add to the tally.

I don't think I understand your other remarks.

I share your thoughts. I was somewhat hesitant to bring it up myself.

The other remarks on waves are just my thoughts on waves -- nothing directly to do with probability amplitudes.

 

[renacat]

Maybe it's "normal" for things to work in waves on a quantum level, just like it's "normal" for objects to travel in a straight line in classical physics. I'm not saying that explains anything, but it seems like there might be some underlying principle that connects all of the phenomena you mentioned.

I read a quote once: "In mathematics, you never understand anything, you just get used to it." =)

 

[bungabunga]

Fact is there is no probability as we generally know it...under certain circumstances there is just one result... In quantum physics , on the other hand, it has a more...unique meaning... personally I join the club of those who say it is ******** that is only growing bigger and bigger...maybe not ******** but not the right way to be "politically correct"...But even though it has gaping holes, at least quantum physics tries to explain things that were once...and still are just "the way things are"...Damn it I hate those words!...One way or the other, humanity will find the way forward as they have always done...and by humanity I mean mathematicians...and by mathematicians I mean anyone that isn't wasting his time..his life on ********...and by forward...I have been looking at the Poincare Theorem (not a conjecture anymore ha!ha!) and while I still lack the mathematical skill to really understand it ( obviously, since no one else except Perelman seems to do...it has taken them 8 bloody years to give him the M Prize!...so I guess I have an easy way out ), my guess is it should explain why we seem to asociate pretty much everything to a wave and what they really are...But it's easy to say that Ricci derivatives could have been used to explain it eons ago when you can' t actually prove it...

 

[Lost in Space]

Could matter be said to be made of standing waves?

 

[Studiot]

OLD Thread?