« first day (4599 days earlier)      last day (411 days later) » 

3:38 AM
does anyone use pennylane :0
 
4 hours later…
7:28 AM
@BalarkaSen You must teach them general covariance
I have seen some different opinions on the French :
"On the polarization of light the Frenchmen have nothing but nonsensical theories on undulations and homogeneous light, besides computations which are not based upon anything. They are constantly in a haste to measure and to calculate ; they consider this as the main thing, and their slogan is le calcul! le calcul! But I say, Où le calcul commence, l'intelligence des phénomènes cesse: he who has only numbers in his head cannot find the trace of the connective cause."
although that was in the 19th century
Maybe they got better :p
7:49 AM
LOL whom is this quotation by
@BalarkaSen Schopenhauer
he was a math hater apparently
Based
I thought Goethe
Goethe had similar feelings too yes
 
3 hours later…
10:45 AM
0
Q: Adding tags to review queues

khaxanI recently encountered the review queues section, where I found that questions of my watching tags don't appear. It would be really nice if the site adds this functionality.

11:10 AM
Interesting.. I always found it mysterious that cross product can only be defined in very specific dimensions. I now see it really comes down to the ability / inability to construct a certain $n \times n$ skew symmetric matrix with specific constraints
@Amit you can define a cross product in arbitrary dimension actually
But it will lose some nice properties right? You mean with differential forms?
What exactly do we mean by "a cross product" here?
Using the volume form, yes
But it's not a binary product
You multiply $n-1$ vectors in dimension $n$
@ACuriousMind Something that takes two vectors and produces a vector that's orthogonal to both inputs. I understand in higher dimensions than 3 the generalization will not produce a vector but rather tensors with more than one index
11:18 AM
see, the two of you are talking about two completely different ways to generalize "the cross product" :P
I thought we may be :)
@Mr.Feynman Where is that from? :)
@Amit Frankel, chapter 3. Exercise 3.1(3)
Thanks
@ACuriousMind I'm not sure. As I said, the point here is that you don't really have $2$ vectors in the ordinary case, you have $3-1$
@Mr.Feynman Amit is talking about a generalization that always takes 2 vectors and produces not always a vector (likely the concatenation of the wedge and the Hodge). You're talking about a generalization that always produces a vector but takes more than 2 vectors in higher dimension. Those two things are not the same.
11:26 AM
I rather always produce a vector (or pseudo vector...)
Ah but I see what you mean, you're saying these are two generalizations directions
Like I suppose with the LC symbol... that would be the first one, adding more indices
Mad
Mad
$v_{l \pm n} = v_{l }$ where as $v_l$ is a base vector. for $l = 0...n$
i want ot show that the operator give throught $\sum_{l=1}^n v_l \phi_{l-1}$
$\phi_l= <v_l, ->$ is hermetian.+
the heremtian of $v_l$ is $\phi_l$ and that of $\phi_{l-1} $ is $v_{l-1}$
This is physics so dont ask about details, none are provided
some hilbert space of quantum mechanical mumbo jumbo
so the hermetian is given through $ \sum_{l=1}^n v_{l-1} \phi_{l}$
Now i need to show that thi is aquivalent. i thought, i show hte sums are the same, which i dont think they are... then, lets try to apply a random base vector
I'm more interested in the first because I recently found out (and was a bit dismayed of never hearing about it before) that the 3d cross product can very nicely be written if you convert one of the vectors into a skew symmetric matrix and then just do regular matrix multiplication. I wonder then if the produced matrix of the generalization in $4$ dimensions has any interesting properties... most probably (educated guess) the determinant will be the area spanned by the two vectors
... but I also guess, any sense in which this product is "orthogonal" will be lost
Mad
Mad
obviously the basis vectors are orthogonal
but when i apply v_j i dont know what to get, since for first you have a none zero product for l=j+1 then we get v_j+1
the second you get v_j-1
what am i doing wrong
the output of v_j is just v_(j+1). it just cyclically permutes the vectors
Mad
Mad
yes, but if i apply v_j to the hermetian you get v_j-1
so you dont get the same result!
the actual operator is also given with an additional scalarproduct term that contains i but i left it out, since thats just a number
11:41 AM
its unitary, not hermitian
Mad
Mad
this is the operator
$\vert l + L > = \vert l > $
that is hermitian. its sum of A and A*
Mad
Mad
its the same operator i wrote
without the scalar product
i just translated the braket notation into mathematical one
no its not. the operator corresponding to the above is $\sum_{l =1}^L (v_l \phi_{l-1} + v_l \phi_{l+1})$
Mad
Mad
how did you find that out?
11:45 AM
by looking at it
translating bracket notation into mathematical one, but correctly
Mad
Mad
$\vert l >$ is $v_l$
$<l-1 \vert $ is $\phi_{l-1}$
the middle is a scalar product so number
how did you get the rest
+ is not addition i think its spin operator?
$<l+1 \vert + \vert l> $ i dont think this is + this is spin operator in scalarproduct
@Mad it is addition
you have completely misunderstood how to read this bra-ket notation
you're completely misinterpreting this. this is (|a><a+1|) + (|a><a-1|). |a><a+1| is just multiplying a covector with a component of the vector
Mad
Mad
but in the lecture we defined + as the spin operator. it is based on sakurai
So maybe i misunderstood..
it's the sum of the operators $\lvert l\rangle\langle l +1\rvert$ and $\lvert l \rangle\langle l-1\rvert$
Mad
Mad
11:51 AM
Oh... that makes... so much sense..
if + is the spin operator then im a jellyfish
@Mad I am very sure you did not "define + as the spin operator". If anything, you defined eigenstates of some spin operator to be denoted as $\lvert -\rangle$ or $\lvert +\rangle$
Mad
Mad
True!
I misunderstood.
This is why i personally do not like this notation, i find it more confusing then helping. But maybe thats just me.
Thanks!!
this seems to be a classic case of actually believing "This is physics so dont ask about details, none are provided"
Mad
Mad
Well then i solved my issue
Thanks !
11:55 AM
Right... physics equations should be more like poetry... you just read and what matters is what it means to you! 🤣
such an absurd thing to say
Mad
Mad
this is not true, there is objective truth
my rant is about displaying this "truth"
I was only kidding
i understood the irony
What's a good quantum computing book
that wasn't designed for people who don't know QM
11:58 AM
@Slereah You know about Chuang and Nielsen? It does teach a bit of QM at the start, but I think it quickly gets deeper after 2-3 chapters
Let's find out
Mad
Mad
to my question
it is about a chain of atoms, L of them , the kets should resemble then the state, in which an electron in the atom $\vert l >$ with energy E_o is.
there should be a tunneling effect to neigbouring effects l+1
what does in this case the operator $\sum_1^L \vert l > < l+1 \vert $ represent? if i put v_j i am getting v_j-1
how do i intrepret this physically?
a Tunneling operator to j-1?
IE to previous atom
12:23 PM
It's always weird reading QC books because there's David Deutsch that seems to be often in them
ie the crazy man in GR
Mad
Mad
So is the interpreation correct to the given operator?
@Slereah lol, is he a crazy man? all I know is that he came up with one of the first nifty algorithms that demonstrated how a quantum speedup should work
He wrote a lot of weird stuff on closed timelike curves
Ah, I didn't know..
Mad
Mad
if i put in a random vector $v$ in that operator i get $ \sum c_j v_{j-1}$ for $v=\sum c_j v_j$
$\sum_i v_i <v_{i+1}, \sum_j c_j v_j> = \sum_i \sum_j c_j v_i <v_{i+1}, v_j> = \sum_j v_{j-1} c_j$
well actually c_j* because its defined like this in physics
12:42 PM
There is an alternative to dark matter called MOND. It modifies the Non rel Gravitation law. It also happens to explain the Tully Fischer relation
I don't like it @RyderRude, it seems too ad hoc to the extent I understand it at least
The last bit is a co-incidental consequence of MOND. So this favors the theory. But i think MOND, at best, needs to be treated like a non rel classical theory. We still have to relativise it and curvatize it, even if it works
@Amit yes. It is ad-hoc
It may prove useful as an intermediate stepping stone to a more unifying idea but I don't see it as telling us something fundamentally new
It is an ugly modification
It's a bit reminiscent of what Planck did when he introduced his constant
12:45 PM
Yes. Good analogy
Laws cant be modified like that. We r not fine tuners here
Instead, a good physicist looks for re inventing the wheel
Like how QM isnt merely a modification of CM
MOND is like fine tuning the newton's gravity law
It sounds like Bohr's modification of classical mechanics
I wouldn't say it was wrong to propose it, because such "annoyances" can prove useful even if only by getting theorists to find better alternatives
Yes. Bohr's classical theory of atom was also useful
It was exremely ad hoc too. I dont think its even consistent. Bohr just postiulated that some discrete orbits were stable
But isnt this postulate ad hoc?
Classical mechanics cant prove the stability of those orbits
I think
Bohr's postulate is still used today in geometric quantization
It is a bit more complicated but it's still there
Yes. It is fine as a postulate of a more fundamental theory. It is ad-hoc when it is used as an additional postulate in classical mechanics, like what Bohr did
And i think this postulate is even inconsistent with CM
Mad
Mad
@BalarkaSen
12:56 PM
Bohr's postulate also shows up in the WKB approximation @Slereah
Like how boundary conditions lead to discretization. And we have to patch up the WKB approximations in different regions
Idk geometric quantisation yet but i remember reading about something similar there, yes
Geometric quantisation explanations use too much jargon
I will have to revise lots of math first. Is the geometric quantisation jargon from differential geometry? @Slereah
1:11 PM
it be
 
1 hour later…
2:31 PM
@Amit Used to get EM Faraday tensor from EM potential. Also shows up in angular momentum
Nice!! In angular momentum where?
You extend $\vec r$ to be $(t,\vec r)$ and $\vec p$ to $(E,\vec p)$ and do the antisymmetrising there
Interesting, makes sense and I'm surprised I've never seen it before
it's "just" a 4-position and a 4-velocity
sry, 4-momentum.
@naturallyInconsistent Thanks for that tip, found it here.
 
1 hour later…
3:48 PM
Feels a bit unfair that when I was young I spent so much time on set theory and propositional logic but now these are old people theories
Now it's all about categories and HOTT daddy-o
4:12 PM
category theory literally be like: A [[Category]] consists of a collection of objects $X, Y, Z, ...$ and a collection of morphisms $f, g, h, ...$ such that:
i) each morphism has an object as its domain and codomain, denoted by $f: X \rightarrow Y$,
ii) each object has a designated identity morphism, denoted $1_X: X \rightarrow X$,
iii) for any pair of (composable) morphisms $f: X \rightarrow Y, g: Y \rightarrow Z$, there exists a specified composite morphism $g \circ f: X \rightarrow Z$,
iv) (Identity Law) for any $f: X \rightarrow Y$, $1_Y \circ f = f \circ 1_X = f,$
4:23 PM
@Slereah unintentional intentional sexiness?
The sexiness is known but not intended
I know the puns of homotopy type theory but I refuse to make them
Should one put physical meaning to point dipoles? I have a feeling it's just a mathematical object that eases some calculations, after all it's original purpose is simply to make sure that all the terms in the multiple expansion except dipole term vanish. but it seems quite absurd to me to think of them as real things
@Slereah The original guys who coined the term probably did it intentionally. Hence, unintentional on your part, intentional on their part
@nickbros123 do the textbooks not openly state that they are convenient mathematical fictions?
4:42 PM
@naturallyInconsistent griffiths doesn't, but i suppose he thought it was obvious
is there a way to conceptually see why time reversal done twice on a spin state adds a negative sign to state
griffiths does since he distinguishes between point and physical dipoles
this is pg 150 in griffiths enm 3rd ed @nickbros123
Yeah i know, i should've caught on when he distinguished point dipole from the suggestively named physical dipole
I was also wondering whether I should care about the entire premise of dipoles, and polarisation . It's just that in books like JDJackson or FNH robinson, they also write down the quadrupole potential terms, and their moments whenever one writes down potentials and fields inside any material. Apparently the quadrupole term plays a role in the process of averaging of quantities (the truncation process). Then one goes on to give importance to polarisation and dipoles. Is there a reason for this
4:58 PM
@Relativisticcucumber Why do you need to see this "conceptually"? It's very straightforward to compute from $T = \sigma_y K$
and since an overall negative sign doesn't actually change the state, I'm not sure what conceptual reason you expect here - time-reversal applied twice should not change the state, but with what overall phase it multiplies the states does not have any significance in isolation
i did the computation but generally if something doesnt fit into my framework/update my understanding in some way, i wont remember the result bc in that case its just a random meaningless maths statement
and thats just not a sustainable way to study physics for me personally
why would you need to remember this result?
i guess my confusion then is why sakurai calls this an amazing result?
so i assumed its important
just remember $T = \sigma_y K$ or if you can't do that either remember how it's derived from $T\sigma T = -\sigma$
@Relativisticcucumber I'm afraid I don't see anything amazing about it :P
but people generally act very weird about time-reversal when it's just an operator :P
@nickbros123 The whole subject is just utterly cursed
5:05 PM
@ACuriousMind correction to my above statement, he calls it an extraordinary result. but ok i see. hm strange
i also felt this way about parity and thought i was missing smth
yes, people act weird about parity, too :P
I think there's a certain kind of physicist whose brain just is baffled by the existence of transformations that don't have infinitesimal versions
5:30 PM
Hola
Salutations @Charlie!
5:55 PM
@nickbros123 I only see them as a good exercise in boundary value problems xD. quadrupole moment can be a good introduction to tensors and index notation (and einstein summation notation) though
You know I often look around for articles on the history of GR and I think there's pretty much nothing in Nazi Germany?
outside of the whole 100 authors against Einstein thing
What were they even doing back then
Heisenberg worked there, he did some GR
Speaking of which
Translation is finally out!
The Nazis were denouncing "Jewish Physics" and so it should be dangerous to publish positive work on GR at the time.
Yeah, maybe some Nazi scientists worked on competing theories but I don't know of any famous example (or any example for that matter from such a source)
Quantum happens to be co-developed by "Jewish Physics" and "Aryan Physics" and so it was safer. The Nazi war machine was also needing a lot of chemistry work.
As far as I know they weren't even doing much against or in competition with
6:05 PM
Maybe they were too busy with the bomb too
I know they had some weird cosmological theory, world ice theory, but that was mostly insane ramblings
Because Hitler himself tasted the danger of chemical weaponry, he deliberately did not use chemical weaponry in the war effort, only in the gas chambers, and so the effort in chemistry is mainly to try and produce enough fertilisers and other needful things. Like replacements for rubber and other petroleum products that they were in incredible shortage of
it's not like the nazis didn't have differential geometry, Teichmuller was a big nazi
@Slereah Mein Kampf is full of that. The whole fixation to eradicate Jews is coming from the deeply held beliefs.
And one should not paint them as insane. They have incredibly unsound premises, but were able to logic using them enough to convince a whole lot of people to vote for them
There was no lack of people with weird beliefs in the history of GR but they did usually produce their own insane theories in such cases
6:11 PM
Gun certainly helped with coercing votes but still
I mean have you read world ice theory
I'll keep calling it insane
does anyone know what "can be regarded as a state on the bipartite systems..." is referring to? as in how do i do this regarding :P
@Slereah my point is that if we keep painting all these horrible people and ideas as insane, it would be difficult to mount a winning effort to oppose them, to deconvert them. And recent events make it really clear that sound people are in a tremendous minority.
I mean if you prefer the more rational route of treating world ice theory :
> Hörbiger had various responses to the criticism that he received. If it was pointed out to him that his assertions did not work mathematically, he responded: "Calculation can only lead you astray." If it was pointed out that there existed photographic evidence that the Milky Way was composed of millions of stars, he responded that the pictures had been faked by "reactionary" astronomers.
He responded in a similar way when it was pointed out that the surface temperature of the Moon had been measured in excess of 100 °C in the daytime, writing to rocket expert Willy Ley: "Either you believe
also lol the reviews on 100 authors against Einstein
@SillyGoose what exactly is unclear here?
6:17 PM
> This book details how not everyone agreed with the so-called "theory" of Relativity, a pseudoscientific fraud created to assuage fears of people learning that earth does not move.
In all prior scientific experiments, nobody could prove the earth moved.
I think to start I do not understand what $A - BC$ should correspond to Hilbert space wise.
@SillyGoose they're all the same Hilbert space
you just mentally insert different brackets
$\psi$ is a state on $H_A\otimes H_B\otimes H_C$
to "regard" it as a bipartite state A-BC you just think of that tensor product as $H_A\otimes (H_B\otimes H_C)$, i.e. as being made of the subsystems $H_A$ and $H_B\otimes H_C$
nothing else
oh those are not subtraction signs?
@SillyGoose ...what would subtraction mean in this context?
hm i see okay this is more clear
@ACuriousMind that was my confusion :P
6:20 PM
The text says bipartite systems
@Slereah This is not so much insane as haughty to the point of rejecting empirical evidence to the contrary
I didn't even think for one moment about the "subtraction" sign, there are three different ways to partition this into two subsystems, the text lists three different options and so that's what the text has to mean
Trying to show that Euclid's axioms form a vector space
not too hard but some bits are a little tricky
Mostly trying to show that you can multiply lengths by a real number
Martin Heidegger more or less asserted that the poetic truth should be preferred over the scientific truth... in retrospect it's obvious why: according to the scientific truth there's a good basis to claim all humans are alike, but according to his fancy poetic truth he is worth much more than a non-Aryan
@Slereah lol, this reminds of my parents, who were watching a propaganda drama trying to make the point that their pioneers made a mistake, and then completely missed the point the drama was trying to make, and doubled down upon the stupidity.
6:22 PM
Since you can't generate real numbers from finite amounts of euclidian procedures
interesting i hope to improve my reading skills -- my first thought was that the subtraction sign denoted some sort of known partitioning result :P
Now I think it's safe to call that a rejection of rationality
The only other GR-related man I know from nazi germany is Buckard Heim
@ACuriousMind I cannot remember the source of where I got this, but the whole setminus sign being something else than the standard minus sign, is because the construction of integers using empty sets and power sets and so forth, makes the reuse of symbols incredibly confusing.
Heim whose biography seems to oscillate strangely in between "He was maimed due to a lab accident" and "He was a nazi scientist working on explosives and his lab was bombed by resistance fighters"
> "On May 19, 1944, Burkhard Heim wanted to fill an oxygen bottle with oxygen. It exploded, and the blast of fire ripped off both his hands, took out an eye, ruptured his eardrum, and burned his face. I later spoke to a chemist who saw him right after the explosion, and he reported that Heim walked out the door in that condition, still fully conscious..."
6:25 PM
@Amit IIRC Kant was also wrong over the parallel postulate. Philosophers not understanding their limitations are all over the place
that's why I don't do experimental work
@naturallyInconsistent See, I'm the opposite: I find the $\setminus$ more confusing because it looks a lot like taking a quotient :P
@naturallyInconsistent oh that's for sure, I am just mentioning Heidegger as a rather prominent member of the Nazi party
@ACuriousMind I also hated it for a very long time, until I read the quote and realised that it was a disaster no matter what you pick
@Amit Not in disagreement. Sanity is in incredibly short supply, throughout history.
It takes on a massive form whenever times are hard, and the "right" leader comes up with "heartwarming" arguments of the form "Time are very hard... we must.... restore glory.... be strong.... SACRIFICE...." etc. lol
Emotions take over
6:30 PM
It is quite the problem, that politicians see that they must keep times hard, so that they can keep getting elected.
how can n be negative
They'll get elected anyway but they also want more power. I mean, a leader can only do "boring", "minimum footprint" stuff, more administrative in nature. But I think many of them don't want that, because it diminishes the scope of their influence
no of occurences of outcome 1
cant be negative
@PrateekMourya The text isn't claiming that n "can be negative", it's saying that if you mathematically pretend it's continuous and can be negative the error you're making is small
please elaborate a bit more
6:40 PM
if you have a function $P(n)$ that's zero outside of an interval $[n_1,n_2]$, then $\int_{-\infty}^\infty P(n)\mathrm{d}n = \int_{n_1}^{n_2} P(n)\mathrm{d}n$
because integrating over zero just gives zero
@PrateekMourya The distribution function is ridiculously tiny for $(-\infty,0)$ and the area contribution that integrating over the negative part brings is going to be negligible, so it is ok to just extend the integration region.
ah so you say interval 0 to inf
and less than 0
function is 0
so we extend the limits to -inf to inf
@naturallyInconsistent is it due to (n+mean) being so large
e^-(n+mean) small?
@naturallyInconsistent
anyone? can you confirm
@PrateekMourya For constant $a>0$ and constant mean $\mu$, the factor $e^{-a(x-\mu)^2}$ is incredibly tiny once $|x-\mu|$ is a few times bigger than the spread $1/a$
6:48 PM
thanks b/w for all of you who have studied stat mech
how did you solved such doubts by urself
as I cant rely on asking doubts everytime here
@naturallyInconsistent thanks
funny, just yesterday the fun-ness of the subject came up :)
I'm grouping all the worst spacetime topics together at the end of the spacetime section
Topology change, non-Hausdorff spacetimes, exotic smooth structures and continuous metrics
non zero torsion is one of the goodies? :)
Oh non-zero torsion is with the cool kids
thought so :)
the back bench, lol
6:57 PM
Between the chapter on the Levi Civita connection and non-metricity
It's gonna be a forceless tour de force!
I just need to write it
oh don't get bogged down in such small details :D
half a chapter a day will keep your worldline ok
I will probably include finite field spacetimes in loser town if I include them
7:08 PM
@Slereah Is most of the work translating existing notes you have already or are you actually working mostly from scratch?
It is a big patchwork of various things
A big part of the job will probably be to harmonize notation and terminology
I see. Then maybe, don't try to get it all perfect on the first edition :)
oh I'm definately not being held back by perfectionism
A lot of the chapters just say TALK ABOUT THAT THING
ah, good :P
Hopefully by the time I get to talk about them I will know what it is
7:11 PM
Lol this paper legitimately plagiarizes at least the entire introduction verbatim iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0253-6102/45/2/014/pdf
I made a chapter on numerical GR for unknown reasons
I guess for completion
is this common?
the paper from which the one i linked above seems to take from is here: arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0512246.pdf. the abstract and intro and probably more is verbatim copied
It is not
Hence why I include it
I don't need no damn common topics
They're common!
ah, shortage of communication there I think
oh
its like a double published article?
i see xD
7:14 PM
I need a book with a section title called "Spacetimes which are complete for all geodesics but not for timelike curves of bounded acceleration"
The most important of all
wait wait no i just misunderstood. i guess it was published and posted on arxiv but the arxiv version has additional authors
I mean I think @Slereah is thinking you're asking if numerical methods are common in GR textbooks @SillyGoose 😅
@SillyGoose no, that's not quite right: The arXiv version claims "International Journal of Quantum Information, Vol. 3, No. 4 (2005) 603-609" as the journal reference
but the single-author paper you linked is in a different journal, so it's not just the published version of the pre-print
but people trying to get as many publications out of what is essentially a single paper is unfortunately not uncommon
The metric people are being measured by is the amount of papers published. That is always going to cause trouble.
Also, if someone found a wonderful way to explain something, it would help to have copies, rather than seek a different way to explain every time, risking it becoming much worse.
I remember looking for the most cited paper of all times once
It was some 1950's organic chem paper
that guy must be rolling in the big bucks in his grave
What's an even stupider topic I can include
Maybe I can rake up some stupid GR contraptions from that NASA book
7:39 PM
I should include a bit of the crazy stuff for fun too really
@Slereah You can take a peek at one of those endless "reference" style GR books, like "Choquet-Bruhat"
Choquet-Bruhat is some very dry and boring stuff, it's already planned to go there
A whole section of the book is planned for the Cauchy problem.
Which one though, there's a much longer one
"General Relativity and Einstein Equations" is the long one I think
The long dry boring one on the Cauchy problem
Ok, I'm sure you know better than me
I don't even know what is the Cauchy problem, one can say it's not a problem for me yet, lol
 
1 hour later…
8:58 PM
uugh, I cannot find that dayum philosophy and logic paper/book that talks about how both "the electron passed through slit A AND slit B" and "the electron pass through slit A OR slit B" can explain every experiment, i.e. it is a choice of which to believe
famous one?
9:57 PM
I dont think philosophers of physics are famous, but it is one of the bigger names in the tiny business
10:08 PM
hah, Popper?
He did write quite a bit apparently about QM
Rumors also have it, he really knew his physics
> Popper wrote extensively on the quantum theory. In Logic der Forschung (LSD) he devoted a whole chapter to the topic, while the whole of Volume 3 of the Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery is devoted to the quantum theory. This volume entitled Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics (QTSP) incorporated a famous earlier essay, ‘Quantum Mechanics without “the Observer”’ (QM).
No, I don't think Popper did any maths on the logic of quantum theory
Oh, maybe he did do some
But not on the topic of whether it is A AND B or A OR B
mm, other famous names are Kuhn and Feyerabend
Hilary Putnam, too
Putnam in particular -- I see a lot of logic related references with his name on it
@naturallyInconsistent Is this your offender?
Quine and Reichenbach are also mentioned in this link...
It really is a small field lol, same names come up in a tight mesh
There's plenty of them, you just don't typically hear about them
@Slereah Yes, I considered that too. But I took as a reference the number of famous names in QM proper wrt to the number of big name Philosophers that dealt with this stuff, in that sense I think it is still relatively a small field
@Amit I originally suspected that it was Reichenbach, which is why I looked up some of his books and was shocked to not be able to find what I was looking for.
10:26 PM
@naturallyInconsistent Any chance it's not really a proper "philosopher" e.g. von Neumann?
Anyway drop a line maybe when you find it, sounds curious
I definitely do not think it is von Neumann. von Neumann would likely have put it inside his mathematical foundations of quantum theory if he worked it out
I am still searching for it, sigh
10:47 PM
@naturallyInconsistent Bohr btw also had this philosophical idea he called "Complementarity", probably again not what you're looking for, but just in case...
11:04 PM
definitely not
11:26 PM
thanks anyway
11:41 PM
Try asking the AI lol
Good night =]

« first day (4599 days earlier)      last day (411 days later) »