A Operators used without being explained

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter Technon
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operators
Technon
Messages
17
Reaction score
3
I started watching the video lecture series here: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2016/video-lectures/part-1/ I notice that they use the term "operator" without first explaining it. Operators are also not explained (in fact they are not even mentioned) in my course litterature (Physics for Scientists and Engineers, 6th Edition by Paul A. Tipler (Author), Gene Mosca).

Since operators are not explained, it seems one is supposed to understand the subject without knowledge about them? Is it possible?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Technon said:
I started watching the video lecture series here: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2016/video-lectures/part-1/ I notice that they use the term "operator" without first explaining it. Operators are also not explained (in fact they are not even mentioned) in my course litterature (Physics for Scientists and Engineers, 6th Edition by Paul A. Tipler (Author), Gene Mosca).

Since operators are not explained, it seems one is supposed to understand the subject without knowledge about them? Is it possible?
Lecture Notes: first document, first page (after introduction)!
 
So operators are just functions
 
Technon said:
So operators are just functions
Yes, and usually linear functions. That is they apply to vector spaces. One (normally) says operator instead of transformation, if this vector space itself consists of functions, e.g. smooth functions, or continuous functions, or as in QM square integrable functions. E.g. if we consider ##V=C^\infty (\mathbb{R})## the vector space of all smooth functions in one real variable, then ##D=\dfrac{d}{dx}\, : \,f \longmapsto f\,' ## is such a (linear) operator, the differential operator.

Have a read: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/tell-operations-operators-functionals-representations-apart/
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
Technon said:
So operators are just functions

fresh_42 said:
Yes, and usually linear functions.

With an appropriate interpretation of the term "functions", yes. An operator on a vector space is a mapping of the vector space into itself, i.e., it maps every vector in the vector space into another vector in the vector space (which might, in some cases, be the same vector).

I say this because operators in QM, which are always linear, are often represented by matrices, and most people don't intuitively thing of matrices and functions as being the same thing.
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
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
Back
Top