|
|
| Author |
Message |
Bill Hobba
science forum Guru
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 2138
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:28 am Post subject:
Six posutulates of QM?
|
|
|
I was looking at the synopsis of one of the subjects I have enrolled in:
Review of operators and their role in quantum mechanics, different
representations, Dirac notations and linear vector space, matrix approach to
quantum mechanics, eigenvalues and eigenvectors, unitary transformations, R-
and P-representations, tensor product of states, six postulates of quantum
mechanics, concept of measurements, quantum entanglement, density matrix,
general theory of angular momentum, quantum oscillator, two-level systems,
non-relativistic theory of spin, spinors, hybrid orbitals and chemical
bonding, theory of scattering, Born approximation, partial wave analysis,
perturbation theory.
Six postulates of QM? My reading of Von Neumann's standard book is that
that there are only two. What am I missing?
Thanks
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sue...
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:28 am Post subject:
Re: Six posutulates of QM?
|
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
| Quote: | I was looking at the synopsis of one of the subjects I have enrolled in:
Review of operators and their role in quantum mechanics, different
representations, Dirac notations and linear vector space, matrix approach to
quantum mechanics, eigenvalues and eigenvectors, unitary transformations, R-
and P-representations, tensor product of states, six postulates of quantum
mechanics, concept of measurements, quantum entanglement, density matrix,
general theory of angular momentum, quantum oscillator, two-level systems,
non-relativistic theory of spin, spinors, hybrid orbitals and chemical
bonding, theory of scattering, Born approximation, partial wave analysis,
perturbation theory.
Six postulates of QM? My reading of Von Neumann's standard book is that
that there are only two. What am I missing?
Thanks
Bill
|
The absurdities of a formalism are not one of my favorite fields
of study but I might take a blind stab and posit that it took
Feynman about four more assumptions to fix all the mirrors with
QED that QM broke.
We could probably invent photons that wear wristwatchs, carry
magnetic monopoles and explore all paths with about four
assumptions.
2 + 4 = 6 ?
"Feynman's approach to optics "
http://www.physics.yorku.ca/undergrad_programme/highsch/Feynm1.html
Sue... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Too Many Kooks Spoil the1
science forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 402
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:23 am Post subject:
Re: Six posutulates of QM?
|
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
| Quote: | I was looking at the synopsis of one of the subjects I have enrolled in:
|
Good lord Bill! I always thought you were a venerable old professor
with a long white beard, a tweed jacket and a gnarled walking stick.
Not a sprig of a student!
Was I wrong? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oriel361
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 18 Sep 2005
Posts: 141
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:08 am Post subject:
Re: Six posutulates of QM?
|
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
| Quote: | I was looking at the synopsis of one of the subjects I have enrolled in:
Review of operators and their role in quantum mechanics, different
representations, Dirac notations and linear vector space, matrix approach to
quantum mechanics, eigenvalues and eigenvectors, unitary transformations, R-
and P-representations, tensor product of states, six postulates of quantum
mechanics, concept of measurements, quantum entanglement, density matrix,
general theory of angular momentum, quantum oscillator, two-level systems,
non-relativistic theory of spin, spinors, hybrid orbitals and chemical
bonding, theory of scattering, Born approximation, partial wave analysis,
perturbation theory.
Six postulates of QM? My reading of Von Neumann's standard book is that
that there are only two. What am I missing?
Thanks
Bill
|
The only substantive topic is perturbation theory which emerged as a
consequence of Newton and how he bundled the Keplerian insight on
orbital motion with the seperate Roemerian insight on finite light
speed,quite an achievement considering the awful consequences of doing
so.
The observational anomalies based on observations made from an
orbitally moving Earth suddenly disappeared and were replaced by
perturbations which is why nobody will ever come to the right
understanding of Roemer's insight and how it applies to modern
observations.
Seperate the Roemerian and Keplerian insights and then work on orbital
motion using compound motions such as the Earth's heliocentric motion
compounded with the solar system's galactic motion in one direction and
more favorable avenues for orbital geometric resolutions will open
up.Orbital geometries based strictly on local solutions centred on the
Sun should be obselete with knowledge that the solar system's orbital
motion around the galactic axis must affect planetary heliocentric
motion in some way.
In short,perturbations are old hat,wrongheaded 17th century constructs
which are now counter-productive in terms of planetary geometries.
"PHÆNOMENON V.
Then the primary planets, by radii drawn to the earth, describe areas
no wise proportional to the times; but that the areas which they
describe by radii drawn to the sun are proportional to the times of
description.
For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a
little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion
distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the
areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers, and particularly
demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his satellites; by the
help of which eclipses, as we have said, the heliocentric longitudes of
that planet, and its distances from the sun, are determined." Newton |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shuba
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 160
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:26 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums |
send newsletters
|
| |
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Relativity
