Are 'Observables' Considered a Valid Term in Quantum Mechanics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheCavortr
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    observables
TheCavortr
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Is ``OBSERVABLES'' a word? I know ``OBSERVABLE'' (singular is), but what about the plural?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You find this plural in virtually any textbook of QM.
 
It's the same as VEGETABLE. Once you'll read some QM, you'll find certain similarities between the 2 words.

Daniel.
 
dextercioby said:
It's the same as VEGETABLE. Once you'll read some QM, you'll find certain similarities between the 2 words.

Daniel.

(Or between yourself and vegetables if you read too much of it! :wink: )

-Dan
 
I've seen it written many times in quantum texts, but neither my LaTex spell checker nor my e-mail spell checker appreciates the plural.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
935
Replies
5
Views
883
Replies
124
Views
8K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Back
Top