« first day (3233 days earlier)      last day (1694 days later) » 

12:29 AM
@bolbteppa also I was of the opinion Woit was taking your side where he thinks the apparatus has some kind of special status
But clearly does succeed in getting to a conclusion he finds satisfactory
 
12:42 AM
Also I feel Lubos essentially saying in a different way you have to accept being unsatisified:
"In my definition, I said that the measurement is the "change of the observer's knowledge". So we may demand a definition of "the observer" and "his knowledge", too."
He goes on to say:
Be free to demand such a definition. But they're elementary building blocks in quantum mechanics – and in most of the human thought, too. In axioms of set theory, we don't indefinitely answer the question "what a set is" and "what is the thing we have used in the previous answer".
 
It's worse than being unsatisfied, the basic idea is that from experiments we find there is no such thing as the path of a particle, therefore all of classical mechanics is immediately wrong, however we know classical mechanics still exists in some sense, so we have to define QM as a theory which reduces to CM in some to-be-defined limit - we know measurements reduce more accurately to CM the less accurately we measure on a microscopic scale but get random the more accurately we measure,
so we want a theory of expected measurements which reduce to CM in some limit. There are physical reasons to expect linearity, so it should be a linear theory, and one can express 'expected value' in terms of eigenvalues of linear operators, so this is why we use linear operators. Establishing that 'expected value' should be the fundamental principle is just stating the Born rule is our fundamental starting point
There are no wave functions anywhere yet, indeed from this starting point we can set things up in terms of density matrices, wave functions, or even go on to get to path integrals
The whole thing is based on probability and reducing to classical mechanics in it's very core foundations, it's kind of amazing to think probability plays no role in this
Basically expecting to be satisfied is a classical notion :p
Once you settle on say wave functions, you use them to define the quasi-classical limit, from which you can then define quantum analogues of classical quantities, such as time derivatives, momentum etc
 
It might be interesting to wonder what this limit you describe as "microscopic" say about this case: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/107209/…
While I am open to the idea of your derivation Im only open to it on the grounds they are an approximate description (yes I am of the opinion your apparatus and your "quantum" system must obey the same laws)
 
This is in that Landau book i keep referencing
 
Which part the limit or my openess to your idea?
 
What I said above sorry
The point is, if you don't have classical mechanics as a backdrop to describe the quantum world, we would have no theory at all
 
12:56 AM
Ah ... is it a direct quote or paraphrasing or an interpretaion what hes saying?
 
Summarizing the jist of it
 
I feel thats not a mainstream view ... And Im curious what you have to say about my comments of "microscopic" limit and approximate description ... And the need for everything to obey same fundamental laws
 
It's the most mainstream view of QM there is
It's the Copenhagen interpretation explained in one of the best QM books by one of Bohr's students
 
I was of the opinion many worlds was dominating and Im also uncertain what they would say in this case
 
The Course of Theoretical Physics is a ten-volume series of books covering theoretical physics that was initiated by Lev Landau and written in collaboration with his student Evgeny Lifshitz starting in the late 1930s. It is said that Landau composed much of the series in his head while in an NKVD prison in 1938-1939. However, almost all of the actual writing of the early volumes was done by Lifshitz, giving rise to the witticism, "not a word of Landau and not a thought of Lifshitz". The first eight volumes were finished in the 1950s, written in Russian and translated into English in the late 1950s...
haha
 
1:00 AM
I mean they have to since they have more copies of themselves compared to to a copenhagenist :P
(they have to have a dominating world view)
 
MWI is definitely not dominating, everything except standard Copenhagen is on the fringes
 
Have u spoken to the particle physicists and sean caroll :P
Also he essentially agrees with u
On page 449
In copenhagen the apparatus is not quantum mehcanical
 
@bolbteppa Lubos is in full acid-throwing mode in this rebuttal. Stripping the acid away, he still remains fundamentally correct.
 
@ZeroTheHero yeah it's a shame nobody else takes this stuff on properly without that stuff
He's absolutely right these guys are having a big effect and are going to have more of an effect e.g. the NYT piece from like 2 days ago, the recent Lost in Math stuff, etc etc
 
Woit is a smart guy but...
 
1:08 AM
Sorry the scientific method proves you right:


"The Copenhagen interpretation still reigns supreme here, especially if we lump it together with intellectual offsprings such as information-based interpretations and the Quantum Bayesian interpretation. In Tegmark's poll, the Everett interpretation received 17% of the vote, which is similar to the number of votes (18%) in our poll."
tbf even others are suprised:

"the Copenhagen interpretation still reigns supreme", receiving the most votes in their poll (42%), besides the rise to mainstream notability of the many-worlds interpretations:
 
physics is NOT math and, quoting a famous professor who specialized in hard-core functional analysis of the Schrodinger problem: if you take the rules too seriously you dig an infinite well.
 
The Copenhagen interpretation is an expression of the meaning of quantum mechanics that was largely devised from 1925 to 1927 by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. It remains one of the most commonly taught interpretations of quantum mechanics.According to the Copenhagen interpretation, physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured, and quantum mechanics can only predict the probability distribution of a given measurement's possible results. The act of measurement affects the system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values...
'Lectures with the titles 'The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory' and 'Criticisms and Counterproposals to the Copenhagen Interpretation', that Heisenberg delivered in 1955, are reprinted in the collection Physics and Philosophy.[8] Before the book was released for sale, Heisenberg privately expressed regret for having used the term, due to its suggestion of the existence of other interpretations, that he considered to be "nonsense".'
 
@ZeroTheHero we actually started this whole massive discussion because I was unsatisfied with a derivation of the time-energy uncertainity principle
:P
And no I still dont think I was being thick :P
To be fair Im am now of the position I m unsatisified with the broad useage reagarding that specific derivation
 
methinks this is one of the most abused results on quantum physics.
Since time is NOT an observable one has to be very very very very careful in defining what is meant by uncertainly in time. Certainly the initial Robertson’s derivation ought to be taken with a very large grain of salt.
 
Me agrees too .. .However some people (high fliers point wise) were using it situations they couldnt (and they conceded on that)
@bolbteppa Im curious about how the heisneberg equations of motion hold when something quantum is interacting with something quasi-classical ... Surely there has to be some abstract work on this
 
1:16 AM
Isn’t that all this pointer state stuff?
 
It's treated as a quasi-classical system which has a wave function
 
Yea ... bolbteppa assumes the apparatus has to be quasi-classical .. but Im uncomfortable with that as I dont see any fundamental law saying the apparatus and physical system obey 2 different laws
 
A wave function is defined so that it reduces to the form $\Psi \approx e^{iS/\hbar}$ where $S$ is the classical action, and $\hbar$ is some term that makes the exponential dimensionless (since $S$ has units), and $\hbar \to 0$ in the classical limit which forces $S$ to be extremized giving classical mechanics back
 
Hey is the main site "offline due to maintenence"???
Hey is the main site "offline due to maintenence"???
@bolbteppa sounds like the correspondence limit?
 
The classical limit or correspondence limit is the ability of a physical theory to approximate or "recover" classical mechanics when considered over special values of its parameters. The classical limit is used with physical theories that predict non-classical behavior. == Quantum theory == A heuristic postulate called the correspondence principle was introduced to quantum theory by Niels Bohr: in effect it states that some kind of continuity argument should apply to the classical limit of quantum systems as the value of Planck's constant normalized by the action of these systems becomes very small...
 
1:21 AM
sorry correspondence princple
is what i meant :P
 
In physics, the correspondence principle states that the behavior of systems described by the theory of quantum mechanics (or by the old quantum theory) reproduces classical physics in the limit of large quantum numbers. In other words, it says that for large orbits and for large energies, quantum calculations must agree with classical calculations.The principle was formulated by Niels Bohr in 1920, though he had previously made use of it as early as 1913 in developing his model of the atom.The term codifies the idea that a new theory should reproduce under some conditions the results of older...
 
I guess my problem was :

Bohr's correspondence principle demands that classical physics and quantum physics give the same answer when the systems become large.[5] A. Sommerfeld (1924) referred to the principle as "Bohrs Zauberstab" (Bohr's magic wand).
I would be suprosed if there would be a position either of us could take which isnt historically mentioned :P
*suprised
Expect perhaps my original "This derivation of time-energy principle enables people to think they can use it cases they clearly can't" :P
Thats my level of originality
Also any one knows german in the chat??? I'm curious if "Bohrs Zauberstab" is a pee pee joke because it's translation surely sounds like one :P
esp in the context its used of taking the limit of a system to "large"
 
 
1 hour later…
2:34 AM
@ACuriousMind bolbteppa's way if using quasi-classical apparatus (with Copenhagen) enables him to get more milage out of the time-energy uncertainity principle? (mileage enables him to use it in more physical systems) ... If so I might as well adopt the same position?
*mileage = enables him to use it in more physical systems
 
0
Q: Is it possible to see deleted answers?

More AnonymousI saw a thought provoking answer to my question: How many worlds are there during branching in the many worlds interpretation? Is there anyway for me to re-see the answer before it was deleted?

 
3:03 AM
16
Q: Did Luboš Motl really disprove the "Many Worlds Interpretation"?

OviI found an article on the "Reference Frame" titled Simple QM proof implies many worlds don't exist. I tried to read it, but being a complete layman, I did not understand a thing. Could somebody tell me if this proof is valid and the many worlds interpretation is no longer considered as an option?...

lol
 
@bolbteppa i expect no less from Lubos
Also I asked something u might be interested in?
0
Q: Does the Copenhagen interpretation allow one to bypass a derivation's objection?

More AnonymousBackground and Question So I ask this question: Validity of the derivation of time-energy uncertainty principle? Where I'm thinking about joshphysics's answer: What is $\Delta t$ in the time-energy uncertainty principle? And the gist of what I get is (from the answers and the chatroom) within ...

 
@MoreAnonymous I don't know how you got from this discussion that the derivation of time-energy cannot be applied to all cases, when everybody in the chat said the derivation is fine
 
all xases = ones where measurment is involved as well
Which you seem to circumvent
 
I don't think there is even such a thing as 'non-unitary quantum mechanics' at this stage from reading around, apart from some scattered things
 
This is precisely what I say in the related section
 
3:12 AM
Non-Hermitian quantum mechanics is the study of quantum-mechanical Hamiltonians that are not Hermitian. Notably, they appear in the study of dissipative systems. Also, non-Hermitian Hamiltonians with unbroken parity-time (PT) symmetry have all real eigenvalues. == Parity-time (PT) symmetry == In 1998, physicist Carl Bender and former graduate student Stefan Boettcher published in Physical Review Letters a landmark paper in quantum mechanics, "Real Spectra in non-Hermitian Hamiltonians Having PT Symmetry." In this paper, the authors overturned a longstanding incorrect assumption of quantum mechanics...
This is a different thing
 
In that case perhaps I would find your answer quite enlightening here: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156533/…
I feel like somehow you knew the "right" interpretation before doing a course in QM and never understood why some people take the interpretations of QM seriously at all ... Yes Im comparing myself to a thesist who became an atheist and you to the lucky brat who was athesit from day one
 
I spent a whole year trying to understand why we even needed to use QM and could not just use CM haha
I have read all this crank stuff like Nelson etc
 
Well I havent :((((
And I my professor was of the opinion of the "no interpretations of QM" (or shut up and calculate)
I only went against his conservative views after Wigners friend and that too I resisted
 
MWI and Bohm never explained where they got things like Schrodinger, if they even tried they could have fooled me in the early days for sure
Basically this issue about non-unitarity is irrelevant and illegitimate
 
I'm not sure if trying to convince me if I should go back to "no interpretations of QM" .... Or should somehow be in a superposition of "no interpretations of QM" + "Copenhagen" :P
Alright lets say I start with an interpretation that states the measurement is non-unitary ... Then maybe I can convince you why I feel uncomfortable and the critism is legitimate
?
On 2nd thought ... I gotta go for office fml I havent slept an entire night :(((((
 
 
3 hours later…
6:01 AM
@JohnRennie @PM2Ring I contacted people at CLEARInk and E-Ink and asked them to send me some of that electrophoretic fluid, but of course, it's a trade secret so they politely declined. One of them suggested I buy cheap Alibaba displays and rip them and get what I want but it will still be expensive to cover a whole t-shirt. After trying everything, I think I can surrender in peace.
 
@NovaliumCompany it seems a shame, but as long as you had fun it wasn't a waste of time.
 
@JohnRennie I had fun and I'm not sorry for spending my time with it, I learned a lot. Thanks for helping me along the way :---)
 
 
1 hour later…
7:09 AM
You know
It's quite nice to work out cauchy surfaces in 2d minkowski space
Since it only has to intersect the null geodesics
And those are really easyto do in 2d
 
 
1 hour later…
8:15 AM
WAIT
Weinstein (the physicist, not the rapist) argues that a 2D spacetime can just be defined by two foliations on a $2$-manifold
Although I'm not sure if it's a spacetime or an equivalence class of spacetime
interesting if true
I think it may be causal classes
Actually how the whole measurement issues work under conformal transformation is a good question
might be worth looking into
 
8:27 AM
"By theorem $2$ and our definition of the box atlas $\mathscr{A}_h^\Box$, there is no real distinction between a Lorentz surface $\mathscr{L} = (S, [h])$ and the assignment to $S$ of an ordered pair of transverse $C^\infty$ foliations, which are then viewed as the ordered pair $\mathscr{X}, \mathscr{Y}$ of foliations of $S$ by $X$-lines and $Y$-lines for a Lorentzian metric $h$ on $S$."
That is a useful theorem to have
Actually
If this is true, and measurement is somewhat insensitive to Weyl transforms
That would probably help out quite a lot, at least in 2D
 
8:41 AM
Although I don't think this is true
If two events are simultaneous in one foliation, I don't think it is so in a Weyl transformed version of that foliation
 
 
2 hours later…
 
5 hours later…
3:20 PM
A really basic question
Does resonance occur when the sinusoidal driving force's frequency matches the frequency of the oscillator exactly or just a little bit before that frequency?
I'm asking because of the following:
Hi @Jasmine
 
@AbhigyanC Hello !
 
Are you the same one from JEE last year?
 
@AbhigyanC yes
 
Cool!!
 
@EmilioPisanty you had a computational problem earlier... using Mma I think... did you find a fix to this?
 
 
1 hour later…
4:59 PM
1
Q: What's wrong with the question I've just asked?

kudos19Could anyone tell me what I did wrong to have my question on hold? I think the question is clear and I worked to find the answer. How to solve this projectile motion problem?

 
vzn
5:39 PM
@NovaliumCompany there are some new experiments + products in combining tshirts+display technology... "off the shelf" :)
 
 
3 hours later…
rob
8:42 PM
Thought: the number of recent, not-closed, modestly-positively-scored questions with the tag is quite small
 
9:37 PM
@rob I’m not surprised. Most of the recent homework questions are really textbook, please-do-my-work questions.
 
rob
@ZeroTheHero The 14 results in that search are out of about 330 questions overall, including closed and deleted questions, over the past month.
I'm not terribly surprised either, but it was tedious enough to construct the search that I wanted to write it down somewhere public.
 
ABC
10:13 PM
Why momentum of inertia of mass $m$ in that system: https://ibb.co/C7SzR71 is $I=mr^2$.

My text doesn't give me the length of the thread.
It is as if he assumed that the thread has length 0
 
10:51 PM
@rob what’s the time frame for your search?
 
@rob I'll try to SEDE up some better data next time I have time to procrastinate in
@ZeroTheHero you wanted to ping me? =)
-2
Q: Does spacetime have a frame rate?

scifimathBirth of a new quantum sized particle: The quantum information for a new particle forms and if its state doesn't change it's released as a wave in the quantum field. If it does change it becomes physical and released in spacetime. The Unobserved Quantum Realm is somehow all time, all the time (t...

well, that was quick
.... you might even say it only took a few frames =P
 
rob
11:09 PM
@ZeroTheHero That was a month, but the 5%-ish "good homework question" rate also holds for searching over six months (30 good of 900 asked, I think).
@EmilioPisanty I'd be interested in that. I vaguely remember that some information about deleted posts is available in SEDE now, but I don't remember how that works.
 
11:48 PM
@EmilioPisanty yeah was wonderin’ about your oscillation problem in Mma... I think it was last week you posted on this.
I have a similar problem with LegendreP of order -1/2 + i p
 

« first day (3233 days earlier)      last day (1694 days later) »