Timeline for How to find optical toy models of entangled quantum mechanical systems?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 23, 2019 at 2:09 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Qmechanic♦ | ||
| Dec 11, 2015 at 9:08 | comment | added | gatsu | -1 . Writing with uppercase letters does not make your claims more right. I think the first part of your reply is enough to provide some answer to the question (even if it is apparently not answering the original question). The following personal rant on Neumaier and his understanding of physics and what should physics be about, according to your own belief, seem out of place to me. | |
| Sep 7, 2014 at 22:34 | comment | added | CuriousOne | @ThomasKlimpel: I know what you wrote and I gave you the perspective of an experimentalist, who has spent his entire experimental career working on quantum mechanical systems. If you want to know what QM really is, get down and dirty with a light source and some objects scattering it. THAT is QM. Musing about whether photons are "localizable particles" or not is not QM. It's the thoughts of a man who, INHO, simply hasn't read the physics textbooks carefully. I can't comment on your choice of books. Again, if you want to "see" QM at work, that's easy. | |
| Sep 7, 2014 at 22:16 | comment | added | Thomas Klimpel | "we can talk about potential experimental setups in an independent question": What do you mean? I carefully wrote this question to describe what I would like to know, why I would like to know it, and at which point I'm stuck. So the points about which I would need help are the ones following "But which measurements are allowed in such a toy model?" Before writing this question, I consulted Jan-Markus Schwindt "Tutorium Quantenmechanik", Gernot Münster "Quantentheorie" and Jochen Pade "Quantenmechanik zu Fuß" in detail. I wasn't aware that these are not real textbooks. | |
| Sep 7, 2014 at 22:09 | comment | added | CuriousOne | @ThomasKimpel: I won't get into a discussion with you about this. I said my piece. You can ask other physicists about the obvious confusion of a mathematician (?) about physics in these "lectures". Like I said, you can find the most simple "model systems" of QM in every real introductory textbook about QM. Please consult the library. If you want advice on how to repeat simple quantum mechanical experiments with light with simple means that everybody in the developed world has access to, I am more than happy to help you. | |
| Sep 7, 2014 at 22:04 | comment | added | Thomas Klimpel | These lectures are definitively not "introductions", but this doesn't mean that they are enormously confused. They use advanced technical language and tools without even trying to introduce them properly. For the tools with which I'm familiar, I can assert you that the lectures applied them correctly. The advanced tools he uses are the reason why I would prefer simpler models... Regarding Prof. Dr. Arnold Neumaier's perspectives, they may appear skewed from a physical perspective, but their mathematical content is good enough for all practical purposes... | |
| Sep 7, 2014 at 21:23 | history | answered | CuriousOne | CC BY-SA 3.0 |