I Common features of set theory and wave functions?

Click For Summary
The discussion explores potential connections between set theory and wave functions in quantum theory (QT). It highlights that both wave functions and sets lack trajectories and can distribute over areas. Additionally, wave functions can decompose similarly to how sets can represent collections of elements, such as subatomic particles within an atom. However, some participants argue that the comparison may be overly ambitious, noting that in classical mechanics, states are points in a set, while in quantum mechanics, they are vectors in vector spaces. Ultimately, the conversation seeks to clarify any explicit common features or properties between the two concepts.
Hallucinogen
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
I would like to know if any of you think there's any sort of connection, analogy, or common features between, sets in set theory and wave functions in QT?

Wave functions lack trajectories, so do sets. Wave functions also distribute over areas, as sets can do. To my understanding, wave functions are also subject to decomposition; for example, an atom has an associated wave function, and this can decompose into the associated wave functions of the particles atoms are believed to be composed of. In exactly the same way, we can view the atom as a set, containing subatomic particles as its elements.

As such sets of objects may correspond to unique superpositions.

I would like to know if I am correct in my analysis and if anyone knows of any explicit common features or properties of mathematical sets and wave functions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The only common feature is that you can define any function by sets. I think your comparison is too far-fetched to make any sense.
 
  • Like
Likes Hallucinogen
Hallucinogen said:
I would like to know if any of you think there's any sort of connection, analogy, or common features between, sets in set theory and wave functions in QT?
In this lecture at 1:17:20 and forwards (Lecture 1 | Modern Physics: Quantum Mechanics (Stanford)) Leonard Susskind describes the differences between the states in classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. Basically, states in classical mechanics are points in a set (phase space). In quantum mechanics states do not form sets. Instead, states are vectors in vector spaces over the complex numbers.
 
  • Like
Likes Hallucinogen
A vector space is a set of elements together with a field (like the real or complex numbers) called vectors with some algebraic operations defined on these sets. Today nearly everything in math is based on set theory.
 
  • Like
Likes Hallucinogen and Klystron
DennisN said:
In this lecture at 1:17:20 and forwards (Lecture 1 | Modern Physics: Quantum Mechanics (Stanford)) Leonard Susskind describes the differences between the states in classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. Basically, states in classical mechanics are points in a set (phase space). In quantum mechanics states do not form sets. Instead, states are vectors in vector spaces over the complex numbers.

thanks
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...