Comments by "Lepi Doptera" (@lepidoptera9337) on "Lecture 1 | Modern Physics: Quantum Mechanics (Stanford)" video.

  1. They have to do with the Fourier transform of a rectangular aperture. If we chose gentle slopes, the fringes go away. That Fourier transform of a Gaussian is a Gaussian. The Fourier transform of a rectangle is a sin(x)/x (sinc) function. It's a mathematical rather than a physical effect.
    1
  2. Wow, that was a big pile of bullshit. ;-)
    1
  3.  @SpotterVideo  Dude, science doesn't work by listening to people who had lost their minds, already. It works by listening to nature. Absolutely nothing about quantum mechanics is even borderline "crazy". It is actually quite trivial once you know what you are looking at.
    1
  4.  @SpotterVideo  Planck's constant is 1 in every rationally chosen system of physical units. What's the source of angular momentum quantization? Relativity. You can find the derivation of relativistic quantum fields as representations of the Poincare group in suitable QFT textbooks.
    1
  5.  @SpotterVideo  We start with the Poincare group and then we derive all possible equations of motion that are compatible with it from symmetry principles. Those include classical laws like Maxwell and then it includes the quantum fields of the standard model. The classical laws don't produce universes with matter. There will be no chemistry, no nothing in those. Leaves the ones with h=1. That's universes based on quantum fields. They happen to reproduce all the visible effects. The actual number is based on our choice of the length of the meter and second and the size of the kg. If we chose different base units we can make h=c=1. The only physical constants that we can not reduce to one are the unitless ones like the fine structure constant, which is roughly 1/137 no matter how we chose the units. Why is it that value? Because not all combinations of quantum fields produce self-consistent converging theories. Which do and which don't depends on physics that is currently out of our reach experimentally. That's why people are searching for e.g. supersymmetric fields. They would complement the currently known ones in ways that should explain why it is this particular universe and not some other. And, no, you don't have a model until you can quantitatively reproduce all known phenomena. And that you can't. At this point all you have is bullshit. ;-)
    1
  6.  @SpotterVideo  Yes, I am familiar with bullshit. You don't have to create more than you already have. ;-)
    1
  7.  @SpotterVideo  I know that you are throwing random words at a wall to see what sticks using bullshit as a gluing agent. ;-)
    1
  8.  @SpotterVideo  And there is the lonely kid who feels sorry for himself because an adult isn't taking him seriously. ;-)
    1