tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883034.post115928357794429793..comments2024-03-23T23:26:40.813+01:00Comments on atdotde: Admitting my ignoranceRoberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06634377111195468947noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883034.post-21706966371039558592014-10-08T06:53:43.732+02:002014-10-08T06:53:43.732+02:00I read your blog.You admit your ignorance. I read ...I read your blog.You admit your ignorance. I read the other comments also.I have no knowledge about it but now I have interest in this type of information.Thanks.<br /><a href="http://www.arx.com/information/pdf-signature/digital-signatures-for-adobe-reader.htm" rel="nofollow"> digital signature Adobe Reader </a> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05521903245653355590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883034.post-1159871902987018612006-10-03T12:38:00.000+02:002006-10-03T12:38:00.000+02:00This post identifies a rather idiosynchratic aspec...This post identifies a rather idiosynchratic aspect of phyisics education. Yes, I agree you really do have to worry about the finer points of functional analysis not to translate wave packets to where they should not be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883034.post-1159690822509982912006-10-01T10:20:00.000+02:002006-10-01T10:20:00.000+02:00This post confronts me with a rather idiosynchrati...This post confronts me with a rather idiosynchratic aspect of my phyisics education...<BR/><BR/>Before getting any quantum mechanics we were required to take a very heavy functional analysis course. Our QM course was then seperated in three parts, one standard introductary quantum phyiscs, one standard QM (hydrogen atom, scatterring...). The third part however was a rigorous course on how to contruct the relevant operators on the correct Hilbert space, where we dealt with all the subtleties you mention.<BR/><BR/>It's too bad that most of that stuff is rusty by now. I'm going to have to TA a QM course this semester, so I might brush up on it, just so the students get the idea that there is more to it then just the "physicists" notation. Thanks for the links in any case!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883034.post-1159489558856717402006-09-29T02:25:00.000+02:002006-09-29T02:25:00.000+02:00One fun paper I reread now and then is quant-ph/99...One fun paper I reread now and then is quant-ph/9907069. It shows simple examples (including one of yours above) where standard Dirac notation can go horribly wrong and where you need to appeal to functional analysis to sort out the mess<BR/><BR/>-HaelfixAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8883034.post-1159450813311380822006-09-28T15:40:00.000+02:002006-09-28T15:40:00.000+02:00Another fun little paper I often reread from time ...Another fun little paper I often reread from time to time is the following:<BR/><BR/>http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9907/9907069.pdf<BR/><BR/>He uses a bunch of examples (some of which you mention) to illustrate where perfectly sensible physicist notation goes horribly wrong and where you have to keep track of all the nitty gritty domains of definition and so forth.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, I was told once (though I no longer recall specifics) the examples where heavy duty functional analysis in QM is necessary often show up in applications with condensed matter, moreso than particle physics.<BR/><BR/>-HaelfixAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com