4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Frankly, I haven't a clue what you're referring to, half the time.
I gave an example of a classical wave  which demonstrates uncertainty.
And you started talking about 'collapse'.

What 'collapse' are you talking about here ?

Or is it simply nonsense, as usual ?

It is not nonsense , Sir . .  .... I put a "sense"  Q  to  you ...  .. . Wave functions are supposed to collapse . .. Can't understand why a very well-read man like you feels necessary to get so furious at this idea . . .  .

23 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Did I use the term "Classical  Wave  Collapse"  ??

You used collapse in reference to a classical wave: (it was clearly identifies as a classical example By MigL)

 

1 hour ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

how and where can it collapse according to physics'  common sense ?

 

8 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

It is not nonsense , Sir . .  .... I put a "sense"  Q  to  you ...  .. . Wave functions are supposed to collapse . .. Can't understand why a very well-read man like you feels necessary to get so furious at this idea . . .  .

It’s a classical example. Not a wave function.

6 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

It is not nonsense , Sir . .  .... I put a "sense"  Q  to  you ...  .. . Wave functions are supposed to collapse . .. Can't understand why a very well-read man like you feels necessary to get so furious at this idea . . .  .

I think @MigLis getting frustrated, or at least puzzled (not furious) at the ambiguity and vagueness of your posts. You may have a clear idea in your own mind of what you wish to say, but it is not getting successfully transfered to your posts. Perhaps take a little more time to review and edit before you hit "Post".

Ok. I  shall  act  according  to  older  members'  will  to    discontinue  ..    ..    ..    ....    .  .   . .. .  .. .They might as well know better than me as to what has and what has not to be written on these open forums . . ... 

 

BTW : I am NOT talking tongue in cheek  ;;;;'''''''''';;;;;;;;''''''''

 

 

 

I'd just like to point out the Heisenberg's Quantum mechanics is a matrix - energy formulation,   not a wavelike differential equation.

This thread is about Heisenberg QM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_mechanics

It was also, IIRC, derived from experimental data, not first principles.
I could, however, be wrong; it has been a while since I read that.

And it was P Dirac, I believe, who showed that E Shrodinger's wavelike differential approach, and W Heisenberg's matrix mechanics were equivalent.

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

It was also, IIRC, derived from experimental data, not first principles.
I could, however, be wrong; it has been a while since I read that.

And it was P Dirac, I believe, who showed that E Shrodinger's wavelike differential approach, and W Heisenberg's matrix mechanics were equivalent.

You're absolutely right, @MigL. It was @studiot's fellow Englishman, P.A.M.D. Those are equivalent, and the HUP can be proven by Dirac's formalism too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_theory_(quantum_mechanics)

They may be fellow countrymen, but I don't think Studiot is as 'quirky' as P A M Dirac is reputed to have been.
What do you think ?