At the beginning there were the natural numbers (surely to make money), thereafter someone introduced the addition (surely to win more money). From the addition one deduced the multiplication for efficiency (3+3+...3 takes more time to calculate than 100*3: the productivity). The linearity and the business were bornpreet0283 said:what is the reason behind choosing the linear vector spaces in representing the state of a system? why is it convenient ? and why do we actually need a linearity ???
We exist in a multi-dimensional world/universe, and vector analysis provides a convenient tool for dealing with n-dimensional models/state spaces.preet0283 said:what is the reason behind choosing the linear vector spaces in representing the state of a system? why is it convenient ? and why do we actually need a linearity ???
Good Lord how I love this forum! So manyh good questions and answers here.preet0283 said:what is the reason behind choosing the linear vector spaces in representing the state of a system? why is it convenient ? and why do we actually need a linearity ???
It's true.pmb_phy said:Good Lord how I love this forum! So manyh good questions and answers here.
It's trueThe best answer to your question, imho, is this - We chose math to describe Nature.
If you give me the permission, I think the nature also shows non linear phenomenon and further more chaotic phenomenon. I think it is not the nature but the human laziness or a human principle of the lowest coast that explain the historic introduction of linear ways of thinking.Nature chose to be linear. Why? Nobody really knows.
Once more time I will try, just for fun, the contradiction. If you consider that the principle of uncertainty (Heisenberg) also is rooted in the axioms of quantum mechanics and if you consider any trinome of a variable (a.x² + b.x + c = 0), you know that the latter owns 0, 1 or 2 solutions depending on the delta. The 2 solutions [delta non zero; x = (-b/2a) + or - ...] are in someway centred on the double one [delta = 0; x = (-b/2a)] and if the coefficient c is not constant in the nature, then the 2 different solutions can be less or more distant from the double one; there is a kind of amplitude, of imprecision in the solutions... Don't you think that it is a mathematical argument to introduce at least bilinearity in the quantum mechanics?Its simply rooted in the axioms of quantum mechanics.
Blackforest said:It's true. It's true If you give me the permission, I think the nature also shows non linear phenomenon and further more chaotic phenomenon. I think it is not the nature but the human laziness or a human principle of the lowest coast that explain the historic introduction of linear ways of thinking. Once more time I will try, just for fun, the contradiction. If you consider that the principle of uncertainty (Heisenberg) also is rooted in the axioms of quantum mechanics and if you consider any trinome of a variable (a.x² + b.x + c = 0), you know that the latter owns 0, 1 or 2 solutions depending on the delta. The 2 solutions [delta non zero; x = (-b/2a) + or - ...] are in someway centred on the double one [delta = 0; x = (-b/2a)] and if the coefficient c is not constant in the nature, then the 2 different solutions can be less or more distant from the double one; there is a kind of amplitude, of imprecision in the solutions... Don't you think that it is a mathematical argument to introduce at least bilinearity in the quantum mechanics?
As said, just for fun. Blackforest.
I disagree with that. WE choose linear models because they are far easier than non-linear models. In fact, one can argue that "modern" physics, quantum physics and relativity consist in replacing linear models with more accurate but harder, slightly non-linear, models.pmb_phy said:Nature chose to be linear.
I'm not certain whether I agree/disagree with that ... yet. Please give an example of how you'd choose the axioms on QM such that they are stated in terms of a non-linear model.HallsofIvy said:I disagree with that. WE choose linear models because they are far easier than non-linear models. In fact, one can argue that "modern" physics, quantum physics and relativity consist in replacing linear models with more accurate but harder, slightly non-linear, models.
I was speaking only of QM.Blackforest said:It's true. It's true If you give me the permission, I think the nature also shows non linear phenomenon and further more chaotic phenomenon.
If you mean that they can be derived from the axioms then I agree.If you consider that the principle of uncertainty (Heisenberg) also is rooted in the axioms of quantum mechanics ...
"the delta"? What do you mean by this? A measure of the associated parabola perhaps?...and if you consider any trinome of a variable (a.x² + b.x + c = 0), you know that the latter owns 0, 1 or 2 solutions depending on the delta.
Can you give me an example of what this parabola represents?The 2 solutions [delta non zero; x = (-b/2a) + or - ...] are in someway centred on the double one [delta = 0; x = (-b/2a)] and if the coefficient c is not constant in the nature, then the 2 different solutions can be less or more distant from the double one; there is a kind of amplitude, of imprecision in the solutions... Don't you think that it is a mathematical argument to introduce at least bilinearity in the quantum mechanics?
As said, just for fun. Blackforest.
Yes, but Sorry sir : [tex]\sqrt{b^2 - 4ac}[/tex]selfAdjoint said:His "delta" is the discriminant [tex]\sqrt{b^2 - 4ab}[/tex], often denoted [tex]\Delta[/tex].
Oh I was only trying to explain how one could, perhaps, introduce something else than linearity, f.e here bilinearity, in our way of thinking. "x" was only any variable without any condition, not necessary an operator. It was effectively just a kind of "parable". The contra-argumentation of self adjoint is a bad point for me, except if one could find some real situations, as you suggest yourself for the reality of the things, where the n solutions are automatically centred on one of them ... I repeat: it was a try just for fun and to show that one can perhaps develop other ways of thinking. Best regardspmb_phy said:I was speaking only of QM.
If you mean that they can be derived from the axioms then I agree.
"the delta"? What do you mean by this? A measure of the associated parabola perhaps?
Can you give me an example of what this parabola represents?
Sometimes you have to restrict the mathemetical solutions to those which describe the physical phenomena. Therefore rather than there being some sort of "bilinearity" that you suspect it may be that nature does not allow something you assumed to be true before you got to that point. But I'm not all that clear on what you're talking about with this parabola thing above.
If you're refering to linearity then that equation you gave is irrelevant since it is the operator x which is supposed to be linear and not any equation such as the one you gave.
Pete
You were discussing the HUP right? The terms which appear in that expression must have an associated operator to even be physically meaningful though. If you're speaking about a physical observable then it is an axiom that the operator corresponding to all physical observables are Hermetian operators. These operators are linear. There are non-linear equations in all fields of physics that I know of. But the one that you're speaking of has no meaning to me as far as introducing non-linearity into QM since that quite literally means to me that you're introducing non-linear operators. Otherwise your comments have no meaning to me and you'll have to "dumb it down" for me. :tongue:Blackforest said:Oh I was only trying to explain how one could, perhaps, introduce something else than linearity, f.e here bilinearity, in our way of thinking. "x" was only any variable without any condition, not necessary an operator.
Again, you're speaking of the "reality of things." But this can only mean that you're refering to something which has an operator. All physically observable quantities in QM must have a corresponding Hermetian operator - That's an axiom.It was effectively just a kind of "parable". The contra-argumentation of self adjoint is a bad point for me, except if one could find some real situations, as you suggest yourself for the reality of the things, where the n solutions are automatically centred on one of them ... I repeat: it was a try just for fun and to show that one can perhaps develop other ways of thinking. Best regards
The reasons why I was introducing:pmb_phy said:You were discussing the HUP right? The terms which appear in that expression must have an associated operator to even be physically meaningful though. If you're speaking about a physical observable then it is an axiom that the operator corresponding to all physical observables are Hermetian operators. These operators are linear. There are non-linear equations in all fields of physics that I know of. But the one that you're speaking of has no meaning to me as far as introducing non-linearity into QM since that quite literally means to me that you're introducing non-linear operators. Otherwise your comments have no meaning to me and you'll have to "dumb it down" for me. :tongue:
Again, you're speaking of the "reality of things." But this can only mean that you're refering to something which has an operator. All physically observable quantities in QM must have a corresponding Hermetian operator - That's an axiom.
Pete
May be the ideal description of the nature must be non-linear but the non-linear equation is hard to solve. Because the states in space-time with random variables or random parameters with hidden indexes is translated to the abstract linear space of wave-functions?preet0283 said:what is the reason behind choosing the linear vector spaces in representing the state of a system? why is it convenient ? and why do we actually need a linearity ???
The drunk who loses his wallet at night always starts looking for it under the lampost where the light is good.preet0283 said:what is the reason behind choosing the linear vector spaces in representing the state of a system? why is it convenient ? and why do we actually need a linearity ???