Forums Neueste Beiträge
 

fuer das archive

17/03/2014 - 22:25 von Sam Sung | Report spam
Für's archive - man weiss ja nie, was bei einer
moderierten Gruppe durchkommt:

Jos Bergervoet wrote:

On 3/14/2014 2:48 PM, Hendrik van Hees wrote:

On 14/03/14 10:38, Wizard-Of-Oz wrote:

Jos Bergervoet<jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> wrote in news:53219f49$0$2891




'Indeterminate' can be any value, so it is not a single discrete value.



'Indeterminate' means that the observable doesn't take a value



No, "indeterminate" was used here for the state. And
that is nonsense, because as you say it only has
meaning in relation to an operator that describes
a particular observable. If that one is not specified
there cannot be any meaning in indeterminate.

For instance we could choose either Lx, Ly, or Lz
to classify an angular momentum state as determinate
or indeterminate, and the outcome could be different.



But those are all thougt to be projections from a richer
superspace and to pin that down anyway there is no other
mathematical model known as of yet.


So without a given operator there is no meaning in
determinate. In fact one can always construct an
Hermitian operator taylored to declare a certain
state "determinate", but also another operator that
makes it hopelessly indeterminate.



Because all we will ever have are models that should not,
but are, interpreted by as many men who were reflecting them.



.. but, when
measuring it you get one of its possible values with some probability.



How do you know that? If we follow the time evolution
described by quantum mechanics then your measurement
produces an evolving pure state which is at any time
a superposition of the eigenstates of your operator.
Your measurement device also evolves into a super-
position of states for measured results. Together
of course they form the tensor product of combined
states describing the total entangled state.

Quantum mechanics will not do more for you than
describing that process. (If you think there is more
you should add an additional theory, if you think
what QM describes is too much you must reject QM!)

...



Just models which can produce real numbers that can
never be said to be really equal because there is no
way to determine whether two such reals numbers (eg.
in two variables - model and measurement) are equal
(exactly - to the infinite extent) and thats why the
models needs to go via projections in order to make
any usable sense.

Seen in this light nature's determination or also her
indetermination is just a hypothesis for small talks...
+
 

Lesen sie die antworten

#1 Sam Sung
17/03/2014 - 22:39 | Warnen spam
Sam Sung schrieb:

Für's archive - man weiss ja nie, was bei einer
moderierten Gruppe durchkommt:

Jos Bergervoet wrote:
On 3/14/2014 2:48 PM, Hendrik van Hees wrote:
On 14/03/14 10:38, Wizard-Of-Oz wrote:
Jos Bergervoet wrote in news:53219f49$0$2891



'Indeterminate' can be any value, so it is not a single discrete value.



'Indeterminate' means that the observable doesn't take a value



No, "indeterminate" was used here for the state. And
that is nonsense, because as you say it only has
meaning in relation to an operator that describes
a particular observable. If that one is not specified
there cannot be any meaning in indeterminate.

For instance we could choose either Lx, Ly, or Lz
to classify an angular momentum state as determinate
or indeterminate, and the outcome could be different.



But those are all thougt to be projections from a richer
superspace and to pin that down anyway there is no other
mathematical model known as of yet.

So without a given operator there is no meaning in
determinate. In fact one can always construct an
Hermitian operator taylored to declare a certain
state "determinate", but also another operator that
makes it hopelessly indeterminate.



Because all we will ever have are models that should not,
but are, interpreted by as many men who were reflecting them.

.. but, when
measuring it you get one of its possible values with some probability.



How do you know that? If we follow the time evolution
described by quantum mechanics then your measurement
produces an evolving pure state which is at any time
a superposition of the eigenstates of your operator.
Your measurement device also evolves into a super-
position of states for measured results. Together
of course they form the tensor product of combined
states describing the total entangled state.

Quantum mechanics will not do more for you than
describing that process. (If you think there is more
you should add an additional theory, if you think
what QM describes is too much you must reject QM!)

...



Just models which can produce real numbers that can
never be said to be really equal because there is no
way to determine whether two such reals numbers (eg.
in two variables - model and measurement) are equal
(exactly - to the infinite extent) and thats why the
models needs to go via projections in order to make
any usable sense.

Seen in this light nature's determination or also her
indetermination is just a hypothesis for small talks...
+



Insbesondere auch "die Zeit": falls die nicht gequantelt
"ist", dann kann man das niemals feststellen (wenn auch
die Zahl der Stellen einer reellen Zahl abzàhlbar ist ;)
+

Ähnliche fragen