Recent content by tymarats

To answer my own question: no. I believe that Nugatory's explanation (of the subtle difference between being in a state and would have been in a state if the measurement had been conducted) is the only real explanation so, yes, the reasoning in the video (where it's said that Bob cannot do the...

Hm... Ilja, I think I understand what you're saying. However, the concept is still not clear to me. May I propose a following experimenet, where Alice and Bob are doing their measurements in a perfectly synchronized succession: Timeframe 0 ------------ Alice measures z (scrambles x) and gets...

Thank you for your prompt response. I knew that the a) answer was true, but I mentioned b) because of what I heard here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0x9AgZASQ4k#t=609. The reasoning is obviously wrong (or we would have messages from the future), but I couldn't really...

Hi, I have this one boggling my mind for quite some time. Let's consider a very simple EPR experiment -- pair of entangled particles are sent to Alice and Bob (separated by large distance), who (at the same time) measure its spin along different axis: Alice does the measurement on axis z...

Hm, it makes sense - seeing it that way, \delta is defined exactly as it should be, though most of the time he is actually dealing with (and drawing) its shifted reflections. Seems fine, though I would still appreciate if he mentioned that fact. Thank you!

No :) If you read my post carefully, I'm actually suggesting: f(x) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f(x') \delta(x' - x) \; dx' which is qualitatively different than what is originally used. -- it is not the matter of naming. The two functions \delta(x'-x) and \delta(x-x') are equivalent, but only...

So, it is just me, eh? :) Well, it's not about the style, and it's not about the SP background -- I believe I mislead you by using variable name T -- should have been x_0. Also, I was using the term "delay" in a generalized sense, not having to do anything with time, but rather with shifting...

No matter how hard I tried, I could not find anything but the praise for Shankar's Principles of Quantum Mechanics, and not a single soul ever had any problems with this book... Hmm... Am I the only one who thinks that Shankar's explanations are at times a little... well, let's say...