"However it is a philosophically difficult issue. QM to be formulated needs completeness of the space of the states otherwise some fundamental results do not hold (the spectral theorem). However some of the states have no energy, no momentum etc. in a quite weak sense: the expectation values of these observables do not exist."
did Yariv write more than just his quantum electronics book? In Griffith's quantum book it states that in section 15.4 footnote 22 is a more detailed argumentation about why $\beta = \frac{1}{k_B T}$ holds for a variety of systems but I didn't find any footnotes at all in section 15.4...
@Slereah No. If you "replace" the unbounded self-adjoint operators by their (bounded!) spectral projections, you can still ask all the same questions regarding what you're going to measure but the domain issue vanishes.
All states in the Hilbert space are in principle admissible physical states, but in case of unbounded observables it can be tricky to find the correct prescription for computing the quantities you usually compute by applying the observable to a state.
@ACuriousMind I am aware that mods usually don't like to talk about suspensions, but ooolb's not sure why he got banned for a week. I must say I too am confused about it - the conversation prior to his ban was relatively civil. Can you clarify this so that he can know?
I haven't read Hall but I think this is how the $C^\ast$-algebra approach defends its claim to generality even though unbounded operators cannot be part of a $C^\ast$-algebra - you produce a bunch of bounded operators (either the one-parameter unitary ones from Stone's theorem or the spectral projections) from the unbounded operator and use these instead.
@BalarkaSen We're currently debating whether we might reduce the duration, but one reason is because he kept bringing up his earlier 24 hour suspension claiming it was "ridiculous" and "unjustified" after being explicitly told the reason and told this is not up for debate, cf. the still pinned message.
@0celo7 Some subset of $\mathbb{R}$, yeah, and...I guess you have include all of these, i.e. it bloats the algebra terribly.
@ACuriousMind Thanks for the clarification. I guess that kind of makes sense. I personally didn't think he was being argumentative about it, more like clarifying it was jokingly made; good to know the mods are considering to reduce the suspension span.
Does mathematical sloppiness in standard quantum mechanics ever produce predictions that don't pan out? I'm not talking about things like the WKB approximation, but instead subtle functional analytic issues, such as assuming every Hamiltonian is self-adjoint, has an eigenbasis of bound states, do...
@0celo7 one thing I notice about the papers which the one answer cites is that they all concern the classical limit
which has in common with my earlier remark that nothing is really a problem if one considers a finite-dimensional system. it's the transition from finite to infinite that makes things weird
@Secret Traditional particle physics instrumentation was crude enough that particle identification and event character were basically statistical claims in all but the most easily identified cases, so trying to construct deeper correlation was a losing game: any correlation that existed was washed out of the data by the uncertainties associated with individual events.
Recently data has become somewhat more precise but in many case this has been taken advantage to allow the processing of denser data rather than deeper understand of a few limited events.
I.e. in the big LHC detectors they are taking three digit multiplicities!
Which makes sense because a lot of their analyses are luminosity limited.
The analogy that would come to mind: Doing perturbation theory to first-order with respect to multiple perturbations at once vs. doing perturbation theory to higher-order with respect to one perturbation
with the first one, you're just doing a bunch of linear approximations. with the latter, you have a combinatorial explosion of possibilities
I don't know enough about experimental particle physics to know if the above is a reasonable analogy, though @dmckee
Can someone point out where I'm messing up? I'm trying to compute the electric field $z$ units above the midpoint of a line charge of length $2L$. I carried out the following integral: $$\frac{\lambda}{4 \pi \epsilon_0}\int_{-L}^{L} \frac{1}{l^2 + z^2} \,dl$$. I want to go from scratch and not exploit symmetry.
But note that "the expectation value is undefined" is not a "quantum" phenomenon - it's easy to write down probability densities whose expectation value is undefined, and no amount of manipulation you can do on these will make that any better
@EmilioPisanty Well, there are 39 items in there for me. nvm, that'S Academia The red dot has the same behaviour as the old "number of flag indicator" - it might also light up when there's no item you personally can act on
@EmilioPisanty Hm? I was thinking of the simple fact that the definition of the variance includes the expectation value of the variable itself, so it fails. nvm my joke detector is a bit off today
@Blue That was the theme. The Plot is basically on how the hero manages to trick the villain. What is good about the movie is that it pays attention to details and at least there is some logic in how everything unfolds
the cauchy distribution is defined with pdf $\displaystyle p(x)=\frac{1}{\pi}\frac{1}{\gamma^2+(x-x_0)^2}$ with scaling parameter $\gamma$ and central value $x_0$
basic conclusion being that, while the tracks look sharp, the track width and typical momenta are large enough that it's entirely consistent with the uncertainty principle
Your professor is not obligated to write you a recommendation letter.
You should think about getting a letter from someone who will write a good recommendation for you.
Your professors' attitude is highly unprofessional and needs to be exposed to their academic community. When you're clear, file...
the top-scorer in that thread is deeply wrong, I think
or at least, nowhere near right enough to deserve to ride on the rails of HNQness
@EmilioPisanty Boy, some of the comments there are over the top. My opinion would be that a mentor should always be willing to write the best letter they can (but that if that letter would be harmful they should be willing to tell the student that), and that they should intervene with a student who is on the road to not living up to a good letter soon enough for them to do something about it (assuming they have the wherewithall).
There was a story in my graduate department, about a committee conveining and graduating a student while the advisor was on vacation because the sense of the whole department was that we was exploiting her talents for his own gain.
He was a more than competent theorist, and continued to do good work, so no one wanted to get rid of him, but they had to do something for the student.
@Sid Before my time, but when I was around he would drop in on (other professor's) grad students who had taken his advanced classes and give them assignments. These sometimes lead to papers and he generally took first authorship even if the student did most of the work.
His advanced class examined current papers and methods, and he'd drop in, discuss a recent paper and a new avenue he'd thought up and end with something like "Get it done over the weekend".
"here's this nice intellectual avenue! where does it go? to a dysfunctional relationship with a faculty member with a known-as-problematic track record"
One of my office mates had gone along with it for a while and then quit so he could focus on getting graduated. He said the assignment were almost always interesting and exciting.
@EmilioPisanty The sense I got was that he wasn't breaking any new ground but was filling in a lot of interesting details right behind the current leaders.
@dmckee This is the really, really cool bit of physics though :) like when your supervisor has an idea, only to discover that someone else did it a couple of months ago, but missed some assumption or made the argument way too complicated or something
it's a bit of math which, as I discovered after doing it, was already known to specialists, but is sufficiently visual/cute that it might make some inroads for a different audience
@EmilioPisanty I think I just have a personal preference of filling in the missing details, but maybe that's because I'm a newbie PhD student and haven't yet got to grips with doing properly original stuff?
> All claims in the paper cited (Tetrahedron Lett. 3249 (1979)) should be accepted as fact after, but not before, verification by independent experiment.
(h/t, as always on chemistry stuff, to Derek Lowe)
@EmilioPisanty yeah, it's a bit of a weird feeling
on the one hand, you may well be seeing something there which the original discoverer didn't. so it can be a discovery within a discovery
but you're still in a place where others have been before
The ultimate example of that is probably non-Euclidean geometry
Lobachevsky: so here's some interesting geometry I've been doing... Gauss: Oh, nice, I had that same thing a while back but decided it wasn't worth publishing.
@Semiclassical yeah, well, but if you're competing with Gauss then you might as well just accept that you-getting-second-place is something that's going to happen.