Common Misconceptions in Physics III

topsquark

Forum Staff
Apr 2008
3,106
657
On the dance floor, baby!
Let's get a fresh start here. This is a place to discuss various subtleties in Physics that may be common or generally accepted but turn out to be wrong.

-Dan
 
Mar 2019
924
50
cosmos
wave function vs particle state

"...Most of Introductory level QM deals with Linear Algebra at its base concepts. Along with that concept comes "linear superposition," which means that we can simply add the wavefunctions as they move with respect to each other.

No, waves cannot be considered to be a sum of particle states."
.......................
This semi-tramp desn't know if his old QM texbook outdated.
It tells: ...use wave function to describe particle state.
If the "linear superposition" of wave functions does not mean "a sum of particle states", what is it?
If someone misconsider it's "a sum of paricles moving with different momentum values", that's misconcept.
 
Mar 2019
924
50
cosmos
Cpt

What's the symbol of "-t" mean in physics?
Can anyone in this cosmos go back in time to ask Einstein?
Don't talk that kind of thing to this semi-tramp, he is scared...
 

Attachments

Jun 2016
1,357
687
England
Back in time for t

Time is a very difficult quantity to define precisely.

I get the impression that the seemingly simple "t" in certain equations
is actually somewhat different from the apparently identical "t" used in other equations.

This seems particularly apparent in the 4D Space-Time equations vs the Quantum Mechanics equations.
And these are again different from the "t" in Entropy...

I suppose that all these "t"s must be connected somehow,
but I am not aware of any articles exploring this avenue.

Until we have a clear idea of what +t is, we have little hope of defining -t.
 
  • Like
Reactions: donglebox
Mar 2019
924
50
cosmos
-t vs another cosmos

"...Until we have a clear idea of what +t is, we have little hope of defining -t. "
Yes, Woody.
I don't talk more here. Thank you.
 
Mar 2020
3
0
UK
Entropy
Is there any particular reason why entropy could not be a measure for or proxy of the level of competition in a system?
 
Mar 2020
3
0
UK
If you have a system of agents (whether human, biological, molecular or atomic), if you treat them as competitive entities (competing for money or energy, etc), then does not maximum entropy equate to maximum competition. Ergo can entropy be treated as a measure of or proxy for the level of competition in a system?
 
Apr 2015
1,227
356
Somerset, England
You have to define 'competition' first and then define 'entropy' in terms of it.

Say you had 16 players in a Tennis (singles) tournament, how ould this work?
 
Mar 2020
3
0
UK
I'm not talking competition like a tournament.
Think of agent based modelling systems, where you have multiple agents all operating simultaneously and independently, such as economic agents in the economic market place or biological agents within an ecosystem. They are all competing for resource (money or energy).
Economic theory suggests that in a situation of perfect competition (i.e. maximum competition) then the outcome is even dispersion of the energy / money throughout all agents in the system. The outcome is no different to energy dispersing through a molecular system. The maths is the same.

So why do we not consider it to be the same thing?