if the electron can be in one orbit or in another around the atom, but not in the middle, how does it go from one to the other? does it just teleport?you know adults don't believe in teleportation, do you?
it just moves until it reaches a stable orbital>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09036-w
>>16944432>valence electronare you retarded? if it's on the valence orbital it doesn't change orbits, it just moves from one atom to the other
>>16944433>it just movesexactly
>>16944443there are no forbidden gaps in the valence orbital, but there are between orbitals, the electron can move from one place to the other without teleporting in one case, but not in the other.and teleportation implies non locality, which implies time travel bro
>>16944458>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1287-z>The experimental results demonstrate that the evolution of each completed jump is continuous, coherent and deterministic.
>>16944479>anon can't tell slop from real life anymoregrimalso, the article mentions getting an advance warning on the jumps (telepirtations), not that it doesn't jump retard
>>16944479Holy sloperoni >we finally """proved""" quantum trjaectories guys>look inside>simple wave packet dynamics >single comment by a vixra crankevery time
>>16944391the electron exists as a wave function. it doesn't teleport around, the wave function is present over all possible locations (even in the middle, and it's not really just 'around' but more like the different orders of spherical harmonics)the act of observation is what collapses the wave form into a point, after which we can say 'the electron was here' with some degree of certainty, though still limited by the uncertainty principle obviously. the wave function is kind of just like a probability gradient. you knew all this stuff already though surely?
>>16944484>>16944519>complete meltdown when facing deterministic realitypseud wankery status: shattered
>>16944528>copenhagen interpretation2 out of 3 scientists disagree with you goy
>>16944563good thing science is not a democracy, then
>>16944479isn't this just like saying that sound waves are not continuous waves but must actually a series of discrete points because of how we measured them digitally with a finite sample rate? like... just because we get a discrete value when we measure something, doesn't mean that those values are a complete expression of what that thing is
>>16944563>confidence, a feeling, makes something objectively truei am sad for you ):
>>16944563>he thinks the sample size was physicistsngmi
>>16944571https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02342-yread the title retard
>>16944563>unknownmost honest answer, based whoever did it
>>16944563this is good, I think having a high degree of certainty concerning quantum phenomena is probably a sign that you haven't thought about it enough, or you've become emotionally attached to a certain interpretation because of various fallible cognitive biases etc. What are your views on the matter? I guess both in terms of how you interpret quantum phenomenona and how you view the different interpretations/their acceptance in the scientific community.
>>16944773bot reply. pathetic, jannies really are resorting to chatgpt to incite interaction
>>16944777i am a human loli am bored and wanted more people to reply tho. this board is kinda slow, and a lot of posts read like drivel from /pol/tards who are convinced they have found the grand unified theory and the jews don't want anyone to know or something
>>16944777these are me btw.>>16944528>>16944568>>16944570>>16944773>>16944791I am a musician who isn't formally educated in physics tho, other than just reading stuff for fun, or making stupid things like a synthesiser that uses modeled frequency relationships of spherical harmonics/electron orbitals to generate cool sounds etc. so i might be massively retarded and wrong, in which case please tell me why!
>>16944557>"deterministic" "reality"delusional. None of these experiments disagree with wave function based theories, and most of them model with with greater computational ease than anything bohmtards can cook up.>>16944573>most popular trajectory crankery ("""pilot waves""") barely skirts the 5% markI don't much care about the COPEnhagen interpretation but if you merge it with epistemic approaches it tells you that 57% of people consider QM indeterministic in the bohm schizo sense plus another 15% that basically deem the idea of wave function collapse to be bogus in the first place. This (+2%) yields 74% of people that would agree on the wave function being deterministic and that see no reason to add hidden variable nonsense into the theory just to have trajectories
>>16944809>>I am a musician who isn't formally educated in physics thoFrankly, that gives you a much better starting point than most physicists who, thanks to their education, all suffer Newtonian baby duck syndrome. >waah waah>what do you mean I can't draw an electron as a kepler orbit>what do you mean I have to use linear algebra I wanna use calculusIt's so fucking annoying and floods the field with people trying to complicate the theory. As a musician you at least have a natural understanding of a spanning set, non-orthogonal basis sets, superposition and acoustics (which manifest in EM interactions as well for small cavities)
