Recent content by Tabasko633

Ok so I conclude that there is appearently no interesting thought hidden in this statement and thinking about it too much might only be misleading. Thank you all for your opinions!

Please be less arrogant, especially when not reading the text carefully, because neither is suggested. One can talk about what using a certain formula would imply without suggesting that it is therefore true or writing it down would influence reality. I was also confused by the argument, that...

Thank you for your answers. But despite this being not a good reference and also not the reason for the original derivation, does someone understand the argument? That the product with p being symmetric says something about reversibility?

Dear community, I stumbled upon this ecology article (https://www.witpress.com/elibrary/dne/4/2/402, page 4) and have some confusion about a statement in there: "Before further unpacking the formal defnition of entropy, one would be justifed in asking why not simply choose (1 – p) instead of...

I guess it took two comments for me to understand, but now I got it. In order to connect these two solutions, I will try to find the linear combination! Thank you a lot for your help, blue_leaf77

Actually, it is n=n_{x}+n_{y}=2n_{r}+l. But I tried many different combinations, they behave very different in general. (The polar solution has circular symmetry and the cartesian has mirroring symmetry)

Oh, sry.. (1,1) in both cases! They look the same for the ground state. Should I upload the file?

They correspond to the formulas above. n_{x} and n_{y} are the quantum numbers from the 1D solution. In the polar case, n_{r} corresponds to the energy and l to the angular momentum.

Homework Statement In the exercise, we solved the 2D Harmonic Oscillator in kartesian (x,y) and polar (r,φ) coordinates. We found out that both have the same energy levels, but they look very different, when I plot them. What am I missing? The polar solution seems more like it. Homework...

So how did Achilles pass the turtoise? With a numerical error? ^^

Isn't one of the reasons that time and space are continuous? So we need the concept of infinity to calculate dynamics in such a environment?

Well, rather that I have a keen interest in both and since it's hard to decide I just looked in the direction that seemed easier. After all your thoughts, though, I realize that I this is stupid and will stick with physics for now until I may or may not hit a limit.

It's random. Even if you know the exact wave function, it only tells you how likely it is for the particle to be measured at point C.

While this sounds quite sad.. you might have a point ^^