« first day (2015 days earlier)      last day (2923 days later) » 
00:00 - 16:0016:00 - 00:00

4:27 PM
Suppose I have two normalised states $\Psi_1$ and $\Psi_2$ that are given to me as a sum of some orthonormal basis $\Psi_1 = \sum a_i \psi_i$, but suppose the sums are presented in some way that doesn't make it immediately obvious whether $\Psi_1$ and $\Psi_2$ are the same state.
If I calculate $< \Psi_1 | \Psi_2 >$ can I tell from this if the states are the same? Specifically if I get unity for the integral does that mean the two states are necessarily the same?
 
@JohnRennie If you know that both states are normalized, i.e. $\langle \psi_i \vert \psi_i \rangle = 1$, then yes.
 
I ask because of this question:
0
Q: Finding similar quantum superposition pairs

sebap123I am not sure if my thinking is correct and I'd like to ask if someone can confirm it, or give explanation, what am I doing wrong. I did task where I was asked to tell if pairs of expressions for quantum states represent the same state. Two samples I've been thinking about: $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}...

 
(Also, use \langle,\rangle instead of <,> for nicer bras/kets)
 
Would the answer be to simply calculate the $\langle \Psi_1 | \Psi_2 \rangle$ for each pair? Then if you get unity you know it's the same state while if the answer isn't unity they are different states.
Obviously in this case it's easy and you can tell the answer just by a casual look at the states, but if you wanted a formal procedure for testing would this be it?
 
@JohnRennie Yes, the formal statement is that equality in the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality $\lvert\langle \psi \vert \chi \rangle\rvert^2 \leq \langle \psi\vert\psi\rangle\langle\chi\vert\chi\rangle$ holds if and only if $\chi$ and $\psi$ are linearly dependent.
 
4:37 PM
Thanks, I thought that would be the case but I thought I should check :-)
 
@ACuriousMind Howdy
 
Greetings
 
@ACuriousMind Tell me something I don't know :)
 
@BernardMeurer did you check admissions?
 
@BernardMeurer There is no ten-dimensional consistent quantum theory of supergravity that is not a low-energy effective limit of a string theory.
 
4:51 PM
@3075 Yep, still pending
@ACuriousMind "low-energy effective limit of a string theory" ?
 
Well, string theory is not a quantum field theory, but you can construct the quantum field theory that reproduces the behaviour of the massless string states at "low" energies
Where "low" is...probably a rather gigantic energy, but I couldn't tell you any actual number.
 
@BernardMeurer :(
 
@3075 </3
@ACuriousMind Ah, I sort of get it :)
Tomorrow there's more!
 
There might not be, I don't think I'll be here much over the weekend.
Read: I probably will return Monday.
 
4:59 PM
Hey
What's a good argument for quantum fields being distributions
 
hello
 
Instead of just smooth functions or whatever
 
@Slereah what do you mean by "good argument"?
 
Because I'm too lazy to check for a full proof of it
What happens if you say that fields are just operator-valued functions
 
@BernardMeurer you should check at 5pm everyday.
 
5:03 PM
the laziest way to see it (and probably oversimplified), is that creation operators should create allowed particle states, seen as vectors of the one-particle hilbert space
 
Are creation operators actually operators, though
 
therefore they should be a map from the one-particle vectors to operators, the latter creating a particle in the aforementioned states
 
Aren't they operators on the rigged Hilbert space
 
you may call them creation maps
that associates to one-particle vectors, operators of creation
 
"The map of creation" sounds as if we're doing metaphysics again ;)
 
5:04 PM
@ACuriousMind indeed
QFT is rather metaphysical ;-D
 
Speaking of
Bohmian QFT still has point particles
I wonder what requirement they drop from Malament's theorem to allow this
Bohmian QFT is even less popular than Bohmian QM, though
Non-locality and SR don't go well together
 
@yuggib "The phase space admits a beautiful geometric characterization[...]" I can't believe you used the words "beautiful" and "geometry" together ;)
 
@ACuriousMind :-D
I had to...it is a nice characterization indeed
 
That reminds me
I wonder what phase space quantization looks like for QFT
 
@Slereah What do you mean by "phase space quantization"? Geometric quantization?
 
5:14 PM
@HariPrasad : yes, and yes. And no, I haven't seen a magnetic monopole. You never will, because it's the electromagnetic field, so electric charge is a misnomer, so magnetic charge is a non-starter. Ask a question on the main site if you want more info.
 
Quantization with the...
 
@ACuriousMind let me know what do you think about it afterwards ;-)
 
Weyl star?
 
@yuggib I will :)
 
@Slereah moyal product? I don't think it is possible in infinite dimensional systems
 
5:15 PM
@Slereah Do you mean deformation quantization with the Moyal product?
 
Yeah that one
 
maybe someone attempted something formal
 
That's unfortunate
Oh I'm sure someone attempted it
If p-adic QM exists phase space QFT exists
 
aw yis
I collect formulations of QFT
It is my hobby
Spoiler : there's a lot
although a lot of them overlap a fair bit
I want to be able to do the scalar field for every QFT formalism
Maybe I should also do Schwarzschild in every GR formalism
Or maybe AdS
Bit simpler
 
5:27 PM
@3075 5PM your time?
 
yeah.
 
@ACuriousMind Someday I'll call you in the middle of the night and ask "Tell me something I don't know"
@3075 What's your time? :p
UTC-4?
 
yeah
 
Damn my geography is on spot
 
@yuggib: I think your definition of a generating convex cone is missing a $\cup$, $C-C = X$ doesn't look right.
 
5:33 PM
it means linear combinations $c_1 -c_2$, where $c_1,c_2\in C$
 
Ohhhhh
 
(I took it from algebraists; it is not $\setminus$, but $-$ ;-) )
 
I don't like setminus
 
also for function spaces actually, if you see $L^\infty + L^p$ it means the sum of two functions one of each space
 
I think set substraction should be much shorter and with a much less steep angle
 
5:35 PM
@Slereah I actually agree
 
You know what else is lame?
emptyset
$\emptyset$
 
I changed its definition
 
$\varnothing$ is much better
 
to \O
 
emptyset looks like a zero struck with too much enthusiasm
Currently I think I can mostly do scalar field for like
"non rigorous" operator formalism, path integrals
And just dumb quantization
Basically all the not rigorous stuff
Trying to do it for Wightman but damn that shit gets complicated fast
 
6:05 PM
Are Poisson brackets for fields with functional derivatives?
8
Q: Mathematical interpretation of Poisson Brackets

user47224Lets say we are working in a classical scalar field theory and we have two functional $ F[\phi, \pi](x)$ and $G[\phi, \pi](x)$. In most of the references, starting with two functional the Poisson bracket is defined as $$\{F(x),G(y)\} = \int d^3z \left( \frac{\delta F(x)}{\delta \phi(z)}\frac{\del...

Apparently yes!
 
usually they use Fréchet derivatives; it is sufficient most of the time
 
I don't know what a Fréchet derivative is, though
Is it
fresh
 
6:24 PM
Hm
Is $\{F(x),G(y)\} = \int d^3z \left( \frac{\delta F(x)}{\delta \phi(z)}\frac{\delta G(y)}{\delta \pi(z)} - \frac{\delta F(x)}{\delta \pi(z)}\frac{\delta G(y)}{\delta \phi(z)}\right) $ well defined, though?
Product of distributions and all
Product of two deltas, even
for the CCR
Although I guess like
In that case, you could do the product on the sequence and it would converge to a nice distribution?
Not sure how to justify it though
 
poisson brackets are well defined, no problems, for suitably regular objects of the classical space
 
6:45 PM
yeah I suppose it's fine
I mean obviously the solution is the correct CCR
 
well, in the CCR you have $\delta(x)\delta(y)$, which is well defined for $x\neq y$, right?
products of distributions are well defined except in their "singular domain"
 
$\delta(x-y)$
 
or that is not the name for it?
i dont know, whatever
dont lisen to me :P
 
It's well defined everywhere, no worries
The bad part is when you do the Hamiltonian
That's when you get products of singular parts
 
6:51 PM
@Slereah but that is because of the Stratosky cobordism, right?
 
Of all the wonderful things one might want to understand in nature, you pick atomic bombs?
 
@ACuriousMind as long as he is not allowed to launch one, that should not pose any serious threat
 
The nuclear physics part of making nuclear bombs is actually the easiest, I'd say
Making the detonator sounds way worse
You have to make the shell specifically so that you get the maximal compression
Sounds pretty shit
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform You have to transmogrify the Witten ultracycle first
 
Stop saying fake math words
3
Those are obviously fake
Like "symplectomorphism"
 
6:53 PM
@Slereah transmogrify is true
 
yeah, the Cherry-Salmon form
wicked Witten
 
@Slereah Platonist's reply: They aren't fake, we have just not discovered their meaning yet
 
Oh man
I'm glad that physics philosophy papers rarely go into such territories
The only papers I've seen about platonism was like
Max Tegmark and his mathematical universe
I wonder how much cred you need to write a philosophy of physics paper
 
@Slereah You don't need cred, you need tenure.
 
Sounds like it can be pretty bad for your reputation if you do that too early
You will be THAT GUY
Imagine if Penrose did his bullshit before he was a famous physicist
 
7:00 PM
Imagine if Stratosky did that before becoming a famous physicists...
 
@ACuriousMind it's like doing logic and set theory
 
Logic and set theory is pretty boring and not sensational work, for the most part
Unless you do papers on like
 
@Slereah @__@
 
Intuitionism or nominalism or whatever other weird math thing
 
7:05 PM
Meanwhile on english.SE:
According to this paper (SFW), elephants ejaculate 5-75 ml depending on the type of ejaculate, or less than 10% of a quart. — March Ho yesterday
 
@ACuriousMind you read that yesterday and were waiting for bernard to ask you something, didnt you?
 
@AccidentalFourierTransform No, Bernhard already asked me today
Sadly, I did not see this question before that
 
did he? crap i missed it
 
@yuggib Snoooore
 
2 hours ago, by Bernard Meurer
@ACuriousMind Tell me something I don't know :)
Although if I say something about elephant ejaculate this quickly after pig orgasms, everyone will think I'm obsessed with animal sex facts :P
Ooooh
I just remembered another one
 
7:09 PM
duh, I obviously already knew that
 
I'll keep that for his next question.
 
I have a book on modal logic
I think it was used by the students of the author
It's full of notes, and there's the phone number of the author written in it
 
@ACuriousMind snakes' feet taste like pineapple liquor, possibly
 
I have never had pineapple liquor, so I couldn't say
 
Much like the empty set has a continuous bijection to open subsets of $R^n$
For all n
 
7:13 PM
Software is harder than physics.
3
There, I said it.
::hides::
 
certainly more boring
 
@DanielSank Then you should call it hardware :P
3
 
@ACuriousMind Ha.
 
 
2 hours later…
8:53 PM
@DanielSank Arguable :p
 
9:23 PM
@BernardMeurer I spent half a day trying to discern a slight bug in some documentation.
I guess it's the same in physics though... textbooks so often use such bad notation.
 
@DanielSank I feel your pain ::hugs::
Today we impeached the impeachment's impeachment and now our president is impeached :)
(No, I'm not kidding)
 
 
2 hours later…
11:29 PM
@ChrisWhite IT'S ALIVE! IT'S ALIVE!
 
00:00 - 16:0016:00 - 00:00

« first day (2015 days earlier)      last day (2923 days later) »