> HDE 226868 is another sock-puppet of Daniel Sank. I forgot to mention it.
That was in response to my comment of
> I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's the latest installment in a series of rants against Daniel Sank. Additionally, you've clearly not done your research. Daniel's not a mod, just a regular user. Additionally, he can't be fired, because he's not a Stack Exchange employee. Honestly, I'm disappointed. The quality of the trolling here is really going downhill. Please stop.
Interestingly enough, by the way, that account was being used to post other answers that were at least attempting to answer questions, although they were, in general, crappy.
user54412
2:00 AM
@HDE226868 Yes, that has happened before. In at least one case apparently the troublesome post was deleted by normal offensive flags so fast the mods didn't notice, and afterward I just happened to notice an innocuous answer posted by the user.
Hey all, mind if I ask about best practices of editing questions?
On several questions Ive edited quite a few times and I fear its annoyed the community.
As comments are transient, I often try to encapsulate the comment discussion in edits. However, this seems to change the tone or intent of the question, and posted answers become less relevant (annoying the answerers).
(Oh no. That makes me look like user36790's sockpuppet!)
@theNamesCross A popular practice (which is also kind of undesirable) is to post your updates after the question original form, with the heading "edit 1: Let me clarify the question in response to userxyz's comment, ... ".
There was a meta post about this too, and you can find various opinions there.
Inspired by this meta post on RPG.SE: I think we should keep in mind that posts with lots of "Edit:" and "Update:" sections are a bit hard to read from beginning to end, and we should strive to avoid this style (which I'm certainly guilty of using from time to time).
Yes, sometimes we need to ch...
@theNamesCross For whatever it's worth, I try to make the post as self-contained and good as a question as possible, at the total cost of everything else.
I don't even care if the author's original tone is lost if I think the original writing of the question was poor or obfuscated the point.
For example, users often include irrelevant stuff like "This is my first post, so please bear with me..."
I just delete that stuff entirely. It does not serve the question.
@theNamesCross I would suggest not doing that, at least not broadly. In other words, don't try to include everything from the comments in your question. Take the bits that make your question better, and edit your question to be better accordingly, but everything else, just let it go.
Sometimes you can post a followup question based on a comment, if you think it's a good point but doesn't really fit in your question.
In this lecture by Sidney Coleman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtyNMlXN-sw
Does he state that there's only evolution according to Schrodinger's equation in QM and it is basically deterministic?(at around 45 minutes)
Thanks for the feedback. My latest debacle (here). I get that the number of edits is excessive but Im curious if ive changed the question itself too much?
@vzn Oh, if you find any errors please tell me. I update the work when errors are reported, and I add those who find them to a special "people who found errors" page.
@DavidZ Got your comment in the post. Thanks. Yes, I am trying to be more conservative but I suck at it. The excessive part I get, the changing content part is less clear to me.
@theNamesCross I do think most of your "EDIT:" section is unnecessary. You could probably have tweaked the wording of your original text to be more clear on the points you wanted to emphasize, without really adding so many words.
So I get that constant edits are bad because they pop up in the active feed and 'spam' the feed if they are unnessary and small. Other than that, why is editing bad? Dont we want questions and answers to be as refined as possible for the future knowledge base?
Honestly, it's probably a good rule of thumb that if your posts get longer after editing, your edits are not as effective as they could be. Of course there will be exceptions.
@ChrisWhite you know what's interesting: QM gives us the whole probability distribution for a thing. It didn't have to be like that. Can you imagine a world in which QM only gave the mean or some other "incomplete" statistics? In a way, it's wondrous that QM gives as much as it does!
Basically I have trouble understanding if Born's rule can be ultimately deduced from Schrodinger's equation. I think No. because otherwise if you project a spin superposition state to the same magnetic potential, how can it be that there can be two evolutions when schrodinger's equation will predict one
@theNamesCross that's the only big reason, I think. There is also the fact that people will sometimes browse the edit history, and it's good not to confuse them with too many revisions, but that's a minor concern.
Thanks DavidZ. I was fearful that I might change the question beyond recognition and render answers void. So I chose the EDIT instead. Also, it seemed that most of the disagreement stemmed from 'if rep really matters' etc. and I hadnt clarified in the original question what I meant by misinformation very clearly.
@ViEsr Ok sorry, let me clarify. @vzn is right: using Schrodinger's equation in a large system with lots of "ignored" degrees of freedom, you can compute that a system will turn into a classical statistical distribution with no quantum coherence.
However, that's not the same thing as collapsing to one specific result.
@theNamesCross Perhaps think of it like this: we want questions and answers to be nearly as refined as possible, but they don't have to be perfect. Assuming quality could be measured on a percentage scale, we'd want posts to be at 90% or higher, but an edit that takes a post from 95% to 98% is not really critical.
Given a system S which interacts with an environment E through an operator x, if E is large enough, then the reduced density matrix of S becomes diagonal in the x basis after a short time.
@theNamesCross ah, I see. In the future, if you're worried about changing the question beyond recognition and invalidating the answers, I'd suggest that you consider just not making that edit at all. You don't have to respond to the comments, and when you do want to (because someone raises a good point in a comment), it's often possible to do so just by changing your original wording to be more clear.
Do remember that good editing is tricky. None of us have it completely figured out.
@DanielSank Yes :). Thank you. One more thing, is the wave function subjective? Meaning it is nothing physical of sort and there's only our knowledge of the system that is expressed in this form, so our predicted probabilities for a measurement can be different too
@ViEsr acc to this link the coleman lecture "QM in your face" is from 1994. theres a lot of new thinking/ research since then. looked at the video briefly but not long enough to understand his point yet. physics.harvard.edu/events/videos
2) The wave function tells you the relative information available to a particular sub-part of the universe (which may be you). In that sense, it's relative, but maybe not subjective.
@DanielSank not totally following, that all seems QM oriented (eg wrt sch eqn). borns rule seems to show up in purely classical systems. some (newer) papers pursuing that.
@DanielSank Thank you for your help. Also, is there a resource in your mind I should pursue, I've done say upto a basic course in QM upto angular momentum analysis.
@DanielSank admittedly need to read up on this, not clear on his exact stance on entanglement, but my own stance is that this can/ will be shown "fairly soon".
they say different things, not sure how it all meshes right now. admittedly some of it seems contradictory right now.
> "We believe that, by adding an emulation of quantum noise to the signal, our device would be capable of exhibiting this type of entanglement as well, as described in another recent publication."
@DanielSank or one might say the same about the origins/ near-dogma (now ~1century) around QM :P
anyway think this is all worth delving into further this moment, dont think they have all the answers, but think they are definitely asking the right questions :)
@DanielSank yes, its awesome work, tour de force. actually am thinking that some low-cost classical systems may do a lot of the job! do have a related question for you though...
do you know of experiments that measure photon counting statistics with extremely narrow time accuracy? ie down to the wavelength/ frequency of the/ a (coherent) source? havent worked out the details of this yet, but think it could be the near-golden route to "new theory"...
does QM predict any time dependency of photon statistics detected based on laser frequency?
or (coherent) source frequency in general...
there was an old (now near classic) bell experiment in late 1990s by weihs/ gisin that had high resolution time frequency measurement but it was still very far from (much less than) the laser frequency.
@ViEsr missed this. std conventional wisdom is "no, no, no!" wavefn is not real in line with copenhagen interpretation. but there is new work/ thinking on this. see eg work by cavalcanti. seems to tie in with weak measurements. newscientist.com/article/…
Recently, I had a question closed because it was, strictly, a math difficulty. It occurred during my reading of a physics text named in the question. Admittedly, it was not a profound question, and I did demonstrate my effort to understand the statement, but was self-dissatisfied because my met...
\text{Mechanic energy of the bead : }E_m=E_0+mv^2/2+k(l-l_0)^2/2+mgz,l=R\cos(\theta/2),z=R(1-\cos\theta)\text{ thus }-v^2=\frac{k}m(R\cos(\theta/2)-l_0)^2+2gR(1-\cos\theta)+2E_0/m\\
@TanMath Newton's second law. When the bead is at rest, the sum of the three forces (P : weight, f = force exerted by the elastic cord, R : action of the ring on the bead) is 0
Recently, I had a question closed because it was, strictly, a math difficulty. It occurred during my reading of a physics text named in the question. Admittedly, it was not a profound question, and I did demonstrate my effort to understand the statement, but was self-dissatisfied because my met...
