Comments by "Lepi Doptera" (@lepidoptera9337) on "Understanding Quantum Mechanics #7: Atomic Energy Levels" video.

  1. The effect of chemical environment is less than 1% even in the most sensitive nuclei.
    1
  2. Less spirituality would help. ;-)
    1
  3.  @trevorbates9017  Yeah... I can do without that kind of bullshit.
    1
  4.  @trevorbates9017  That's not science that you got there. :-)
    1
  5.  @trevorbates9017  I bet that you don't even know where sin is defined in the bible. Have a nice day. :-)
    1
  6.  @trevorbates9017  See, I told you that you don't know.
    1
  7.  @trevorbates9017  See, I told you that you don't know the first thing about the bible. :-)
    1
  8.  @trevorbates9017  And now you are just ranting. Answer the question!
    1
  9.  @trevorbates9017  You are still ranting and you still don't know anything about the bible. :-)
    1
  10.  @trevorbates9017  See, you got nothing. :-)
    1
  11.  @trevorbates9017  So you got nothing. :-)
    1
  12.  @trevorbates9017  Are you threatening me with your imaginary friend, kid? That's just sick. :-)
    1
  13.  @trevorbates9017  And now you are backpaddling at the speed of light. :-)
    1
  14.  @trevorbates9017  Yes, there are also the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. Totally invisible. :-)
    1
  15. We don't assume that. That's just high school level science.
    1
  16. The Schroedinger equation is not part of a complete theory. It's a non-relativistic single-quantum approximation. The only "complete" theory is quantum field theory, but you would not try to use it for atomic physics because it entails way too many non-atomic physics effects that are hard to separate out in the way the theory is formulated. Instead atomic physics, like nuclear physics is done with a series of ad-hoc approximations that can be justified both from a QFT theory point of view as well as from an experimental confirmation angle. They are, nonetheless, ad hoc approximations.
    1
  17.  @davidporthouse2717  I have an open mind. As soon as you give me the formula that predicts when the next photon will make a click in my photomultiplier tube, I will use your theory over standard QM. Until then... keep "researching". :-)
    1
  18. Why do you need an explanation for something that doesn't happen?
    1
  19.  @piotrm9260  I won't give you one. It doesn't happen that way. :-)
    1
  20.  @piotrm9260  Of course there are no jumping electrons. That's just a kindergarten explanation. The WF is like a probability distribution. It's what you would get in a non-relativistic world if you would plot the results of an infinite number of position measurements. In reality you won't get that, either, but that would take us into relativistic quantum field theory.
    1
  21.  @piotrm9260  Something living? Are you a gambler in Las Vegas who thinks that the probability distribution of dice at the craps table is Lady Luck? Well, in that case, cue Mr. Sinatra! :-)
    1
  22. ​ @piotrm9260 Why don't you explain physics to me, my friend? ;-)​
    1
  23. You could, of course, grab a textbook on atomic and molecular physics and learn how it really works instead of critiquing the internet. ;-)
    1
  24. Sounds great, until you try that trick and you notice that it's actually not that simple. It's still not a homework exercise for physics students. :-)
    1