Common features of set theory and wave functions?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores potential connections, analogies, or common features between sets in set theory and wave functions in quantum theory (QT). It addresses theoretical aspects and conceptual comparisons, focusing on the nature of wave functions and sets.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that both wave functions and sets lack trajectories and can be decomposed, proposing that wave functions may correspond to unique superpositions of sets of objects.
  • Another participant argues that the only commonality is that functions can be defined by sets, implying that the comparison may not be valid.
  • A different participant references a lecture by Leonard Susskind, stating that classical mechanics states are points in a set (phase space), while quantum mechanics states are vectors in vector spaces, indicating a fundamental difference in how states are conceptualized.
  • Another post reiterates the distinction made by Susskind, emphasizing that quantum states do not form sets.
  • A participant defines a vector space as a set of elements with algebraic operations, noting that modern mathematics is largely based on set theory.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the analogy between sets and wave functions. Some support the exploration of connections, while others contest the comparison, indicating a lack of consensus.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes references to specific lectures and definitions, but does not resolve the underlying assumptions or implications of the comparisons made.

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?
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
7K