Misleading Phrase: Collapse of wave function

[Farsight]

Since the domain of this discussion is Quantum Mechanics, you should perhaps be a little wary of using the term "state" in your own way - in QM a state is extremely well-defined, and cannot be used the way you use it.

That's the way Einstein used it.

Moreover you don't specify what you mean by "space".

Einstein said what he said.

The space of QM is an Hilbert space of square integrable functions, is this the space you are referring to?

No. I'm referring to space as in physics and cosmology. Not to some mathematical abstraction.

Why non-uniform?

Because if it was uniform your test particle would either just sit there or continue in uniform motion. And then you'd say there was no field there.

Do you mean a field "usually" takes on different values at different points in whatever space you are referring to?

No.

Neither does anyone else - a field, by definition, assigns a single value (scalar, vector, tensor,......) to each point in some chosen space.

Your definition of a field is not how Einstein described a field.

And what has the gravitational field got to do with the present discussion?

Einstein described a gravitational field as a place where space was neither homogeneous nor isotropic.

PS I will explain your Einstein quote if you want - but you probably won't

Please do.

 

[krash661]

That's the way Einstein used it.

Einstein said what he said.

No. I'm referring to space as in physics and cosmology. Not to some mathematical abstraction.

Because if it was uniform your test particle would either just sit there or continue in uniform motion. And then you'd say there was no field there.

No.

Your definition of a field is not how Einstein described a field.

Einstein described a gravitational field as a place where space was neither homogeneous nor isotropic.

Please do.

hmm oddd-- i specifically remember you screaming that einstein was stating that space is homogeneous, am i incorrect about your own contradiction?

 

[Farsight]

You are confused, but at least half right - this is a bit back-to-front.

I'm not in the least confused.

Look, I know you distrust mathematics, but others may be interested......

I don't distrust mathematics.

The state of a quantum system is described by a state function which, as shown by P.A.M. Dirac, is taken to be an element in a vector space of functions (called an Hilbert space - it's not the only Hilbert space, of course). In other words the state function is a vector. It is called a wave function because it takes on values in the Real interval [-1,1], just like a sine wave (for example). It incidentally takes no genius to see that the square of this function takes on values in the Real interval [0,1], as we might expect for any probability

You haven't been reading up on my references. Lundeen and others have been saying wavefunction is NOT just some abstract mathematical probabilistic thing, but is something that's actually there.

In QM, the operators that act on this vector space - and all vector spaces admit of operators of one kind or another - I repeat that the operators acting on the QM vector space of functions are taken to be the measurables or observables of the quantum system in question. And the actual measurements made on the system are the eigenvalues of whatever operator we have chosen. And, again as shown by Dirac (and others), these operators must be Hermitian, which have the property that all their eigenvalues are Real - a comforting fact, don't you think?.

What I think is what's real is real and what's abstract is not.

 

[Farsight]

hmm oddd-- i specifically remember you screaming that einstein was stating that space is homogeneous, am i incorrect about your own contradiction?

I haven't contradicted myself. Einstein described a gravitational fields a space that's neither homogeneous nor isotropic:

 

[krash661]

I haven't contradicted myself. Einstein described a gravitational fields a space that's neither homogeneous nor isotropic:

again, i specifically remember you screaming that einstein was stating that space is homogeneous, am i incorrect about your own contradiction?
maybe i need to go back and link your own contradictions.
edit--
LIM-- you are correct-- i just realized that it was the other forum that you screamed einstein clearly stated space was homogeneous, maybe you also stated it on here, and i shall try to find it.
do you remember that link that you would always use?-- what was it again, ideas and opinions, or something of that sort?

 

[Schneibster]

I can save you a little time, krash.

Flat spacetime is homogenous and isotropic.

Flat spacetime + field is not.

 

[Farsight]

LIM-- you are correct-- i just realized that it was the other forum that you screamed einstein clearly stated space was homogeneous, maybe you also stated it on here, and i shall try to find it. do you remember that link that you would always use?-- what was it again, ideas and opinions, or something of that sort?

Try to find it.

 

[krash661]

Try to find it.

ahh-- i remember now-- it was the " volume 7: the berlin years: writings, 1918-1921(english translation SUPPLEMENT) page 140--- IDEAS AND METHODS.
and yes-- i will try to find it--but again, as you already know, you screamed this on the other site, so i am not sure that i can find it here, but something tells me that, that is why you are confident--but i am trying to find on here.

 

[Farsight]

I can save you a little time, krash.

Flat spacetime is homogenous and isotropic.

Flat spacetime + field is not.

Schneibster, there's this little subtlety wherein curved spacetime equates to inhomogeneous space. See things like this:

Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime

Flat spacetime equates to homogeneous isotropic space.

 

[krash661]

I can save you a little time, krash.

Flat spacetime is homogenous and isotropic.

Flat spacetime + field is not.

farsight is one of the narcissistic ignoramus that is endlessly contradicting himself while insulting actual scientist--but ask him for his qualification to do such, and then it will lead you to crickets(the insect's sound).
i mean, is it not obvious that farsight simply cannot grasp ohms?

 

[Farsight]

ahh-- i remember now-- it was the " volume 7: the berlin years: writings, 1918-1921(english translation SUPPLEMENT) page 140--- IDEAS AND METHODS. and yes-- i will try to find it--but again, as you already know, you screamed this on the other site, so i am not sure that i can find it here, but something tells me that, that is why you are confident--but i am trying to find on here.

Give a link to where I "screamed it".

 

[Farsight]

farsight is one of the narcissistic ignoramus that is endlessly contradicting himself while insulting actual scientist--but ask him for his qualification to do such, and then it will lead you to crickets(the insect's sound). i mean, is it not obvious that farsight simply cannot grasp ohms?

Bah, you can't find a link can you? You troll.

 

[krash661]

Flat spacetime equates to homogeneous isotropic space.

does this mean that you just, simply, contradicted yourself again from your previous post?

Einstein described a gravitational fields a space that's neither homogeneous nor isotropic:

 

[Schneibster]

Schneibster, there's this little subtlety wherein curved spacetime equates to inhomogeneous space.

Sure, I said so, didn't I? At least, that's what I thought I was saying.

I don't know why you get trolled so much; maybe you need to work on your delivery a bit.

 

[krash661]

Give a link to where I "screamed it".

yes-- i am in the process-- i think it was under the topological topic. but i also think it is cute that you are denying this, as i am sure once some else sees these comment can help show your pathetic conduct.

 

[Farsight]

Sure, I said so, didn't I? At least, that's what I thought I was saying.

Oh, OK. Apologies. I just meet so many people who think curved spacetime is curved space, when actually it's inhomogeneous space. When you plot the inhomogeneity, your plot is curved because the inhomogeneity diminishes with distance. As does the "force" of gravity.

 

[Fednis48]

You haven't been reading up on my references. Lundeen and others have been saying wavefunction is NOT just some abstract mathematical probabilistic thing, but is something that's actually there.

On that note, I'm still looking to pin down your views on measuring the wavefunction. Do you believe that the wavefunction of a single particle can, even in principle, be measured? And if so, how does that not lead to superluminal communication with entangled particles?

 

[Schneibster]

farsight is one of the narcissistic ignoramus that is endlessly contradicting himself while insulting actual scientist--but ask him for his qualification to do such, and then it will lead you to crickets(the insect's sound).
i mean, is it not obvious that farsight simply cannot grasp ohms?

This is by no means my first forum nor for that matter my first science forum. I have met Farsight before.

He very aggressively states he doesn't want to do any math and everybody decides he's a troll and trolls him. I've had disagreements with him before, and found that once I explained things to his satisfaction, he wound up agreeing with me- and didn't pull any clever tricks like claiming he knew it all along, either.

I suggest you may have misjudged him; partly because he invited it, but misjudged nevertheless. Do me a solid and give him a break, and let's see if he says anything that's typical crank stuff. If I'm wrong, hey, I'm man enough to admit it, put him on ignore, and move on. But I don't think so or I wouldn't have written this.

 

[Schneibster]

Oh, OK. Apologies. I just meet so many people who think curved spacetime is curved space, when actually it's inhomogeneous space. When you plot the inhomogeneity, your plot is curved because the inhomogeneity diminishes with distance. As does the "force" of gravity.

Accepted. You know me, Farsight. I haven't changed that much. Maybe a bit less aggressive, and a little less paranoid; I have had some life changes that have contributed to that.

What you say about curved and inhomogenous is nontraditional, but not AFAICT incorrect. You shouldn't really distinguish them so vehemently, though; in the end it's the same thing. Just a different way of looking at it.

 

[krash661]

I suggest you may have misjudged him; .

no-- i have been on these science sites since 2011-12-ish, i have met many here on other sites, i know farsight's pathetic shenanigans very well.