Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The relevant piece here is acceleration. I understand the rest. The problem in classical explanation is acceleration resulting in energy loss to radiations. With QM, we have an explanation without that radiation, but I am not clear how and why that is, as posed in my questions above.


The net acceleration in cartesian coordinates is zero.


Am genuinely trying to understand.

It's not zero in other coordinate systems? Or you are saying it does come out zero in all the systems. If the latter, I would love to read more including the maths. :-)

Thanks.


Coordinate grids are arbitrary, for any system you can always put a different grid on the same physical reality.

It's just intuitively clear with a cartesian system that there's no net acceleration in a way it might not be for spherical coordinates. If you imagine a sphere, attach to all points of that sphere a normal unit vector pointing inwards, then all points on the sphere are "pointing inwards"; but as each point on the sphere has a corresponding point opposite it, where "inwards" means the exact opposite in cartesian coordinates, the sum of all those inward vectors is exactly zero. With spherical coordinates, you have to convince yourself that the vectors really do cancel. But they're the same vectors described differently.

Just to be clear though: these are still all euclidian geometry, just with different gridlines drawn on them. As yet, nobody has fully solved QM for curved spaces.


I understand. Thanks!

Will try to find the math that shows acceleration in the cartesian coordinates (and with Euclidian geometry) comes out to be zero. That then hopefully will help me understand how is QM solving the original problem.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: