136 reputation
7
bio website
location
age
visits member for 3 years, 11 months
seen Dec 15 '11 at 12:30

Oct
24
awarded  Popular Question
Sep
18
awarded  Nice Question
Jul
2
awarded  Curious
Jul
17
awarded  Popular Question
May
4
awarded  Scholar
Nov
24
accepted Convexity — reference request
Nov
24
comment Convexity — reference request
Thanks Matty! Looking around PIRSA archives, I found Matthew Leifer's lecture too (and more!): pirsa.org/07060033
Nov
23
comment Convexity — reference request
Thanks! This was a reference I noted. Turns out it's there in the library. Will check. Btw, the paper you mentioned is also on my list :)
Nov
23
comment Convexity — reference request
Right. The references it cites, for example Ref [11] in the paperlink. What I am looking for is a stuff about convex polytopes characterizing state spaces in generalized probabilistic theories. I don't have much of an intuition for these and it would be nice to read an introductory text that helps me develop an intuition for the same.
Nov
22
asked Convexity — reference request
Nov
9
accepted Allowed states vis-a-vis allowed dynamics in generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs)
Nov
8
comment Allowed states vis-a-vis allowed dynamics in generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs)
Thanks Matty! That helps. I'm only beginning to study these questions, and the papers you pointed out are quite pertinent.
Nov
8
asked Allowed states vis-a-vis allowed dynamics in generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs)
Jun
5
asked Quantum circuit decomposition
May
1
comment Is there a fundamental reason why gravitational mass is the same as inertial mass?
@LuboŇ° Motl: i half-expected that the principle of equivalence as a postulate would be regarded as more basic. what are the physical ingredients that go into the "derivation" from string theory that you mention?
May
1
asked Is there a fundamental reason why gravitational mass is the same as inertial mass?
Apr
26
comment Is there a direct physical interpretation for the complex wavefunction?
By "algebraic completeness", i imagine you mean - as did those math grad students in scott's case - that the set of complex numbers is closed under algebraic operations, that solutions to all equations are complex? (i'm not familiar with the phrase, just guessing.) There were two questions actually - one, the physical meaning of the wavefunction, and secondly, why complex numbers in QM, and whether the two are related. the complex numbers issue has been fairly well discussed. i haven't read the paper either; will have to read it before raising the issues therein elsewhere
Apr
26
awarded  Supporter
Apr
26
comment Is there a direct physical interpretation for the complex wavefunction?
worthwhile indeed! scott has a way with explaining things crisply, i thoroughly enjoyed that lecture. though the puzzles still need to be worked out.
Apr
25
comment Is there a direct physical interpretation for the complex wavefunction?
Thanks for the reference. This particular ref by Aharanov et al - pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v47/i6/p4616_1 - clarifies what I mean by the question. Aharanov tries to go beyond the ensemble interpretation of a wavefunction to give meaning to the wavefunction of a single particle via - what they call - 'protective measurements'. Whether these have, in practice, been realized I am not sure of. Though this - springerlink.com/content/u479x56464718790 - seems to suggest they haven't been ruled out either.