Recent content by gentzen

Here is the relevant passage from the paper (bold emphasis by me): Alfred Landé and Werner Heisenberg had defended such half-integral quantum numbers in 1921. This caused skepticism and critique. I would interpret this passage as a defence of that earlier work, hinting that it had always been...

Are you sure that it is on page 12? I couldn't find it there. And I am too lazy to ocr this document to make it searchable.

You know https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0608140 (1951 Lectures on Advanced Quantum Mechanics Second Edition by Freeman J. Dyson)? But of course, even if you don't know this text, you certainly know these arguments. But maybe the last bold sentence above (bold by me) helps you at least a bit...

I guess there are not too many things to do with them. You could analyse their position-momentum uncertainty, you could analyse the 2D or 3D harmonic oscillator and its radial symmetry. And maybe two or three other things, but then it soon gets boring. Plane waves are simply more interesting...

yes

In the link, the part in bold above refers to functions from the Schwartz space. The Schwartz space is the function space of all functions whose derivatives are rapidly decreasing. The Hermite functions are functions from the Schwartz space, so in this sense the part in bold also refers to...

Yes :smile: The Hermite functions are such a Hilbert basis. They are eigenfunctions of the Fourier transform. They are well localized in both position and frequency space, and this is not untypical for a Hilbert basis. If you scale them, you get another Hilbert basis, which no longer consists of...

As much as I like PF, it is no alternative to Stack Overflow for surviving the subtleties, inconsistencies and implementation bugs of existing programming languages and coding tools. And I am thankful that I don‘t need to ask those questions there myself, because waiting hours, days, or even...

Maybe not an electrostatic field, but shooting an electrodynamic field at somebody's head is possible. It normally won't hurt, and often it will also be more extended than the head. But that is just because the speed of light is so fast.

I initially didn't refer to any specific question, but you are right, in the end that was the question MBastieK wanted to discuss. And my "update" today is certainly also related to that question, because it weakens my explanation for why In that discussion with MBastieK, I also raised that...

Since I know that you can read German, my discussion on Physikerboard with MBastieK of such a "don't exist" or "no well defined properties" question for a very simple and specific case could be interesting: In a later reply to bhobba it is mentioned ("The issue of this slight modeling...

She is unhappy with the way popularizers use the double slit experiment to illustrate wave-particle duality. She seems to try to better understand the meaning of wave-particle duality for herself, and those oversimplified depictions of the double slit experiment are not helpful for her...

I guess you are confusing David Wallace with Wojciech Żurek here.

Yes. Yes, good point: True is used with respect to a specific model. For statements concerning all models, a different terminology is used. When coming from the syntax side, one could just say provable. I don't remember the terminology when coming from the model/semantics side, but valid sounds...

Well, we still say that a proposition which is True everywhere is just True (or top ⊤), and a proposition which is True only on the empty set (or bottom ⊥/initial object) is False. You can say that the wff is valid, if you want, but you can also just say that it is True. Yes. No need to force...