There's a lovely undergrad level derivation of this in Jochen Rau's new textbook "Quantum Theory: An Information Processing Approach".bhobba said:Some arguments suggest it is just the most straightforward generalised probability theory after ordinary probability theory:
Son Goku said:There's a lovely undergrad level derivation of this in Jochen Rau's new textbook "Quantum Theory: An Information Processing Approach".
He shows only quantum and classical prob are compatible with basic statistical principles like "operationalism", i.e. the ability of another party to confirm the claimed prepared state.
Lavoisier was the head tax collector of Paris. He had the city surrounded by a wall in order to facilitate tax collection at the gates. Imagine having to go through customs in order to reenter your own city. Parisians had made short trips to the country to get out of the oudure and mud, now these took long detours and waits for inspection. What a pain in the @@$@$! In my opinion Lavoisier's wall was a significant motive for the revolution. The proportion of the upper class who were executed is smaller than generally supposed but Lavoisier might have been number one on the blacklist.sophiecentaur said:Lavoisier more or less introduced the idea of atoms before he had his head removed by those nasty French Revolutionaries in 1794.
This sounds more like philosophy than physics.Son Goku said:He shows only quantum and classical prob are compatible with basic statistical principles like "operationalism", i.e. the ability of another party to confirm the claimed prepared state.
The distinction is very blurred when you get down to it. It’s like love and marriage “…………”.bob012345 said:This sounds more like philosophy than physics.
sophiecentaur said:The distinction is very blurred when you get down to it. It’s like love and marriage “…………”.
Nature does not seem to always obey every symmetry physicists conceive of.bhobba said:As Feynman said philosophy (or what some consider philosophy anyway) was once used to make progress eg positivism and relativity. There days symmetry arguments are more in favour. They too may fail to work just as many marriages do. But that does stop people from trying.
Thanks
Bill
We will only ever see a sub set. That rankles in some minds.bob012345 said:Nature does not seem to always obey every symmetry physicists conceive of.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1957/summary/
https://www.nist.gov/pml/fall-parity
That's a good metaphor: Love=Physics; Marriage=Philosophy. As soon as you get into philosophy it's becoming more likely the physics is gone soon...sophiecentaur said:The distinction is very blurred when you get down to it. It’s like love and marriage “…………”.
I would think physics is more like marriage because there is always someone telling you what you cannot do.vanhees71 said:That's a good metaphor: Love=Physics; Marriage=Philosophy. As soon as you get into philosophy it's becoming more likely the physics is gone soon...
My understanding was that Planck quite hated his own "quantum hypothesis" that got him across the black body radiation finish line. He was convinced it was some form of trickery, but was just more or less desperate for the win.gmax137 said:I remember being told the same thing in a physics class, late 1970s. I was surprised to hear this, especially that Planck was among the sceptics. How could the father of quantum theory not believe atoms exist??This is a very interesting addition to the "story." Especially when combined with
Thanks too to @anorlunda for "promoting" this thread.
Reference links please.KipIngram said:My understanding was that Planck quite hated his own "quantum hypothesis" that got him across the black body radiation finish line. He was convinced it was some form of trickery, but was just more or less desperate for the win.
vanhees71 said:You can read this in almost all books on the history of quantum theory
that was the unforeseeable finding that the positively charged matter of the atom is concentrated in a tiny volume of it.hagopbul said:rutherford experiment on scattering of alpha particles?
I'll try - it's been a long long time since I encountered that.berkeman said:Reference links please.
As to the quantum discontinuity – the crucial feature that the energy does not vary continuously, but in “jumps” – he believed for a long time that it was a kind of mathematical hypothesis, an artefact that did not refer to real energy exchanges between matter and radiation.
We might say then that Planck wasn't very discreet about nature being discrete...vanhees71 said:It's well known that Planck didn't like his own discovery, and during the long rest of his long life he was looking for an explanation within classical physics. You can read this in almost all books on the history of quantum theory or biography about Planck.
We have all been 'helped' into that paradigm and it's easy too take it for granted. It must have been a real struggle at the time and with a lot of great brains opposing the idea very competently.bob012345 said:We might say then that Planck wasn't very discreet about nature being discrete...