Register to reply 
Gauge Transformations in Momentum Space? 
Share this thread: 
#217
Oct1206, 05:01 AM

P: n/a

Eugene Stefanovich wrote in part:
> [...] I don't think there is anything wrong with > regarding the Hilbert space of a single particle > as nonseparable. After all, the number of points > in 3D space is not countable, and one can associate > a distinct basis vector (eigenvector of the position > operator) with each such point. That's because we can integrate over a 3D space. But, (at least with standard integration), we can't integrate over an infinite dimensional space in the same way. But about here, my detailed knowledge starts to dry up so I can't say much more. > Your arguments could be correct if your DEFINE > the Fock space as having not more than a finite > number of particles. Then, why I am not allowed > to DEFINE the Fock space as having any number > of particles from zero to infinity? Only because of the difficulty with performing standard integration over uncountablyinfinite dimensional spaces. > [...] See, for example: A. Friedman, "Nonstandard > extension of quantum logic and Dirac's braket > formalism of quantum mechanics", Int. J. Theor. Phys. > 33 (1994), 307 [...] Is this paper on the archive, or somewhere else online? (It's a pain for me to travel to university libraries these days.) Regarding the other items in your post, I need to think about them for a while before replying. 


#218
Oct1206, 05:01 AM

P: n/a

Eugene Stefanovich wrote in part:
> [...] I don't think there is anything wrong with > regarding the Hilbert space of a single particle > as nonseparable. After all, the number of points > in 3D space is not countable, and one can associate > a distinct basis vector (eigenvector of the position > operator) with each such point. That's because we can integrate over a 3D space. But, (at least with standard integration), we can't integrate over an infinite dimensional space in the same way. But about here, my detailed knowledge starts to dry up so I can't say much more. > Your arguments could be correct if your DEFINE > the Fock space as having not more than a finite > number of particles. Then, why I am not allowed > to DEFINE the Fock space as having any number > of particles from zero to infinity? Only because of the difficulty with performing standard integration over uncountablyinfinite dimensional spaces. > [...] See, for example: A. Friedman, "Nonstandard > extension of quantum logic and Dirac's braket > formalism of quantum mechanics", Int. J. Theor. Phys. > 33 (1994), 307 [...] Is this paper on the archive, or somewhere else online? (It's a pain for me to travel to university libraries these days.) Regarding the other items in your post, I need to think about them for a while before replying. 


#219
Oct1206, 05:01 AM

P: n/a

Eugene Stefanovich wrote in part:
> [...] I don't think there is anything wrong with > regarding the Hilbert space of a single particle > as nonseparable. After all, the number of points > in 3D space is not countable, and one can associate > a distinct basis vector (eigenvector of the position > operator) with each such point. That's because we can integrate over a 3D space. But, (at least with standard integration), we can't integrate over an infinite dimensional space in the same way. But about here, my detailed knowledge starts to dry up so I can't say much more. > Your arguments could be correct if your DEFINE > the Fock space as having not more than a finite > number of particles. Then, why I am not allowed > to DEFINE the Fock space as having any number > of particles from zero to infinity? Only because of the difficulty with performing standard integration over uncountablyinfinite dimensional spaces. > [...] See, for example: A. Friedman, "Nonstandard > extension of quantum logic and Dirac's braket > formalism of quantum mechanics", Int. J. Theor. Phys. > 33 (1994), 307 [...] Is this paper on the archive, or somewhere else online? (It's a pain for me to travel to university libraries these days.) Regarding the other items in your post, I need to think about them for a while before replying. 


#220
Oct1206, 05:01 AM

P: n/a

Eugene Stefanovich wrote in part:
> [...] I don't think there is anything wrong with > regarding the Hilbert space of a single particle > as nonseparable. After all, the number of points > in 3D space is not countable, and one can associate > a distinct basis vector (eigenvector of the position > operator) with each such point. That's because we can integrate over a 3D space. But, (at least with standard integration), we can't integrate over an infinite dimensional space in the same way. But about here, my detailed knowledge starts to dry up so I can't say much more. > Your arguments could be correct if your DEFINE > the Fock space as having not more than a finite > number of particles. Then, why I am not allowed > to DEFINE the Fock space as having any number > of particles from zero to infinity? Only because of the difficulty with performing standard integration over uncountablyinfinite dimensional spaces. > [...] See, for example: A. Friedman, "Nonstandard > extension of quantum logic and Dirac's braket > formalism of quantum mechanics", Int. J. Theor. Phys. > 33 (1994), 307 [...] Is this paper on the archive, or somewhere else online? (It's a pain for me to travel to university libraries these days.) Regarding the other items in your post, I need to think about them for a while before replying. 


#221
Oct1206, 05:02 AM

P: n/a

<mikem@despammed.com> wrote in message news:1128407680.618420.49880@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Your arguments could be correct if your DEFINE > > the Fock space as having not more than a finite > > number of particles. Then, why I am not allowed > > to DEFINE the Fock space as having any number > > of particles from zero to infinity? > > Only because of the difficulty with performing > standard integration over uncountablyinfinite > dimensional spaces. I would prefer to generalize the way we integrate things rather that stick to artificial separable spaces only to discover that they cannot accomodate the interacting systems we are most interested in. > > [...] See, for example: A. Friedman, "Nonstandard > > extension of quantum logic and Dirac's braket > > formalism of quantum mechanics", Int. J. Theor. Phys. > > 33 (1994), 307 [...] > > Is this paper on the archive, or somewhere else online? > (It's a pain for me to travel to university libraries these > days.) No, it's not on the Internet. I can send you a copy if you give me your address. Eugene. 


#222
Oct1206, 05:02 AM

P: n/a

<mikem@despammed.com> wrote in message news:1128407680.618420.49880@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Your arguments could be correct if your DEFINE > > the Fock space as having not more than a finite > > number of particles. Then, why I am not allowed > > to DEFINE the Fock space as having any number > > of particles from zero to infinity? > > Only because of the difficulty with performing > standard integration over uncountablyinfinite > dimensional spaces. I would prefer to generalize the way we integrate things rather that stick to artificial separable spaces only to discover that they cannot accomodate the interacting systems we are most interested in. > > [...] See, for example: A. Friedman, "Nonstandard > > extension of quantum logic and Dirac's braket > > formalism of quantum mechanics", Int. J. Theor. Phys. > > 33 (1994), 307 [...] > > Is this paper on the archive, or somewhere else online? > (It's a pain for me to travel to university libraries these > days.) No, it's not on the Internet. I can send you a copy if you give me your address. Eugene. 


#223
Oct1206, 05:02 AM

P: n/a

<mikem@despammed.com> wrote in message news:1128407680.618420.49880@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Your arguments could be correct if your DEFINE > > the Fock space as having not more than a finite > > number of particles. Then, why I am not allowed > > to DEFINE the Fock space as having any number > > of particles from zero to infinity? > > Only because of the difficulty with performing > standard integration over uncountablyinfinite > dimensional spaces. I would prefer to generalize the way we integrate things rather that stick to artificial separable spaces only to discover that they cannot accomodate the interacting systems we are most interested in. > > [...] See, for example: A. Friedman, "Nonstandard > > extension of quantum logic and Dirac's braket > > formalism of quantum mechanics", Int. J. Theor. Phys. > > 33 (1994), 307 [...] > > Is this paper on the archive, or somewhere else online? > (It's a pain for me to travel to university libraries these > days.) No, it's not on the Internet. I can send you a copy if you give me your address. Eugene. 


#224
Oct1206, 05:02 AM

P: n/a

<mikem@despammed.com> wrote in message news:1128407680.618420.49880@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Your arguments could be correct if your DEFINE > > the Fock space as having not more than a finite > > number of particles. Then, why I am not allowed > > to DEFINE the Fock space as having any number > > of particles from zero to infinity? > > Only because of the difficulty with performing > standard integration over uncountablyinfinite > dimensional spaces. I would prefer to generalize the way we integrate things rather that stick to artificial separable spaces only to discover that they cannot accomodate the interacting systems we are most interested in. > > [...] See, for example: A. Friedman, "Nonstandard > > extension of quantum logic and Dirac's braket > > formalism of quantum mechanics", Int. J. Theor. Phys. > > 33 (1994), 307 [...] > > Is this paper on the archive, or somewhere else online? > (It's a pain for me to travel to university libraries these > days.) No, it's not on the Internet. I can send you a copy if you give me your address. Eugene. 


#225
Oct1206, 05:02 AM

P: n/a

<mikem@despammed.com> wrote in message news:1128407680.618420.49880@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Your arguments could be correct if your DEFINE > > the Fock space as having not more than a finite > > number of particles. Then, why I am not allowed > > to DEFINE the Fock space as having any number > > of particles from zero to infinity? > > Only because of the difficulty with performing > standard integration over uncountablyinfinite > dimensional spaces. I would prefer to generalize the way we integrate things rather that stick to artificial separable spaces only to discover that they cannot accomodate the interacting systems we are most interested in. > > [...] See, for example: A. Friedman, "Nonstandard > > extension of quantum logic and Dirac's braket > > formalism of quantum mechanics", Int. J. Theor. Phys. > > 33 (1994), 307 [...] > > Is this paper on the archive, or somewhere else online? > (It's a pain for me to travel to university libraries these > days.) No, it's not on the Internet. I can send you a copy if you give me your address. Eugene. 


#226
Oct1206, 05:02 AM

P: n/a

<mikem@despammed.com> wrote in message news:1128407680.618420.49880@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Your arguments could be correct if your DEFINE > > the Fock space as having not more than a finite > > number of particles. Then, why I am not allowed > > to DEFINE the Fock space as having any number > > of particles from zero to infinity? > > Only because of the difficulty with performing > standard integration over uncountablyinfinite > dimensional spaces. I would prefer to generalize the way we integrate things rather that stick to artificial separable spaces only to discover that they cannot accomodate the interacting systems we are most interested in. > > [...] See, for example: A. Friedman, "Nonstandard > > extension of quantum logic and Dirac's braket > > formalism of quantum mechanics", Int. J. Theor. Phys. > > 33 (1994), 307 [...] > > Is this paper on the archive, or somewhere else online? > (It's a pain for me to travel to university libraries these > days.) No, it's not on the Internet. I can send you a copy if you give me your address. Eugene. 


#227
Oct1206, 05:02 AM

P: n/a

<mikem@despammed.com> wrote in message news:1128407680.618420.49880@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Your arguments could be correct if your DEFINE > > the Fock space as having not more than a finite > > number of particles. Then, why I am not allowed > > to DEFINE the Fock space as having any number > > of particles from zero to infinity? > > Only because of the difficulty with performing > standard integration over uncountablyinfinite > dimensional spaces. I would prefer to generalize the way we integrate things rather that stick to artificial separable spaces only to discover that they cannot accomodate the interacting systems we are most interested in. > > [...] See, for example: A. Friedman, "Nonstandard > > extension of quantum logic and Dirac's braket > > formalism of quantum mechanics", Int. J. Theor. Phys. > > 33 (1994), 307 [...] > > Is this paper on the archive, or somewhere else online? > (It's a pain for me to travel to university libraries these > days.) No, it's not on the Internet. I can send you a copy if you give me your address. Eugene. 


#228
Oct1206, 05:02 AM

P: n/a

<mikem@despammed.com> wrote in message news:1128407680.618420.49880@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Your arguments could be correct if your DEFINE > > the Fock space as having not more than a finite > > number of particles. Then, why I am not allowed > > to DEFINE the Fock space as having any number > > of particles from zero to infinity? > > Only because of the difficulty with performing > standard integration over uncountablyinfinite > dimensional spaces. I would prefer to generalize the way we integrate things rather that stick to artificial separable spaces only to discover that they cannot accomodate the interacting systems we are most interested in. > > [...] See, for example: A. Friedman, "Nonstandard > > extension of quantum logic and Dirac's braket > > formalism of quantum mechanics", Int. J. Theor. Phys. > > 33 (1994), 307 [...] > > Is this paper on the archive, or somewhere else online? > (It's a pain for me to travel to university libraries these > days.) No, it's not on the Internet. I can send you a copy if you give me your address. Eugene. 


#229
Oct1206, 05:02 AM

P: n/a

<mikem@despammed.com> wrote in message news:1128407680.618420.49880@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Your arguments could be correct if your DEFINE > > the Fock space as having not more than a finite > > number of particles. Then, why I am not allowed > > to DEFINE the Fock space as having any number > > of particles from zero to infinity? > > Only because of the difficulty with performing > standard integration over uncountablyinfinite > dimensional spaces. I would prefer to generalize the way we integrate things rather that stick to artificial separable spaces only to discover that they cannot accomodate the interacting systems we are most interested in. > > [...] See, for example: A. Friedman, "Nonstandard > > extension of quantum logic and Dirac's braket > > formalism of quantum mechanics", Int. J. Theor. Phys. > > 33 (1994), 307 [...] > > Is this paper on the archive, or somewhere else online? > (It's a pain for me to travel to university libraries these > days.) No, it's not on the Internet. I can send you a copy if you give me your address. Eugene. 


#230
Oct1206, 05:02 AM

P: n/a

Eugene Stefanovich wrote in part:
> There is an infinite number of unitary transformations from > flavor eigenstates to mass eigenstates. BlasoneVitiello's > transformation changes vacuum, which seems unphysical > to me. I would prefer to have a unique vacuum without > particles of any kind. This is achieved, for example, by > the following transformation: [.....] > > 1) U = 1 on the vacuum vector 0> > 2) U = a_v* a_1 + a_u* a_2 on oneparticle > subspaces H_1 (+) H_2 = H_v (+) H_u > 3) U = whatever on the rest of the Fock space. I still can't make sense of this. It seems like you're defining U as a function of the vector on which it happens to be acting  which is not how one usually does transformations in Fock space. Normally one would write a' = U a U*, where U is independent of particle number. [BTW, since we seem to be the only 2 people interested in this subthread, perhaps we should move to email to avoid spr moderation delays?] 


#231
Oct1206, 05:02 AM

P: n/a

Eugene Stefanovich wrote in part:
> There is an infinite number of unitary transformations from > flavor eigenstates to mass eigenstates. BlasoneVitiello's > transformation changes vacuum, which seems unphysical > to me. I would prefer to have a unique vacuum without > particles of any kind. This is achieved, for example, by > the following transformation: [.....] > > 1) U = 1 on the vacuum vector 0> > 2) U = a_v* a_1 + a_u* a_2 on oneparticle > subspaces H_1 (+) H_2 = H_v (+) H_u > 3) U = whatever on the rest of the Fock space. I still can't make sense of this. It seems like you're defining U as a function of the vector on which it happens to be acting  which is not how one usually does transformations in Fock space. Normally one would write a' = U a U*, where U is independent of particle number. [BTW, since we seem to be the only 2 people interested in this subthread, perhaps we should move to email to avoid spr moderation delays?] 


#232
Oct1206, 05:02 AM

P: n/a

Eugene Stefanovich wrote in part:
> There is an infinite number of unitary transformations from > flavor eigenstates to mass eigenstates. BlasoneVitiello's > transformation changes vacuum, which seems unphysical > to me. I would prefer to have a unique vacuum without > particles of any kind. This is achieved, for example, by > the following transformation: [.....] > > 1) U = 1 on the vacuum vector 0> > 2) U = a_v* a_1 + a_u* a_2 on oneparticle > subspaces H_1 (+) H_2 = H_v (+) H_u > 3) U = whatever on the rest of the Fock space. I still can't make sense of this. It seems like you're defining U as a function of the vector on which it happens to be acting  which is not how one usually does transformations in Fock space. Normally one would write a' = U a U*, where U is independent of particle number. [BTW, since we seem to be the only 2 people interested in this subthread, perhaps we should move to email to avoid spr moderation delays?] 


#233
Oct1206, 05:02 AM

P: n/a

Eugene Stefanovich wrote in part:
> There is an infinite number of unitary transformations from > flavor eigenstates to mass eigenstates. BlasoneVitiello's > transformation changes vacuum, which seems unphysical > to me. I would prefer to have a unique vacuum without > particles of any kind. This is achieved, for example, by > the following transformation: [.....] > > 1) U = 1 on the vacuum vector 0> > 2) U = a_v* a_1 + a_u* a_2 on oneparticle > subspaces H_1 (+) H_2 = H_v (+) H_u > 3) U = whatever on the rest of the Fock space. I still can't make sense of this. It seems like you're defining U as a function of the vector on which it happens to be acting  which is not how one usually does transformations in Fock space. Normally one would write a' = U a U*, where U is independent of particle number. [BTW, since we seem to be the only 2 people interested in this subthread, perhaps we should move to email to avoid spr moderation delays?] 


#234
Oct1206, 05:02 AM

P: n/a

Eugene Stefanovich wrote in part:
> There is an infinite number of unitary transformations from > flavor eigenstates to mass eigenstates. BlasoneVitiello's > transformation changes vacuum, which seems unphysical > to me. I would prefer to have a unique vacuum without > particles of any kind. This is achieved, for example, by > the following transformation: [.....] > > 1) U = 1 on the vacuum vector 0> > 2) U = a_v* a_1 + a_u* a_2 on oneparticle > subspaces H_1 (+) H_2 = H_v (+) H_u > 3) U = whatever on the rest of the Fock space. I still can't make sense of this. It seems like you're defining U as a function of the vector on which it happens to be acting  which is not how one usually does transformations in Fock space. Normally one would write a' = U a U*, where U is independent of particle number. [BTW, since we seem to be the only 2 people interested in this subthread, perhaps we should move to email to avoid spr moderation delays?] 


Register to reply 