tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (http://mathoverflow.net/questions/32599/position-and-momentum-in-quanta)

Scott Morrison comments on "http://mathoverflow.net/questions/32599/position-and-momentum-in-quanta" (7329)

Scott Morrison — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:49:35 -0700

Sorry about the apparent software problems with closing the question. I voted to close (after Harry has also done so), then thought better of it (admittedly in part because I was loath to have the pair of our names on the voted-to-close list! :-) and reopened the question. You can see this all in the edit history, if you like.

I'm happy that Ben then dealt with it, however.

Mariano comments on "http://mathoverflow.net/questions/32599/position-and-momentum-in-quanta" (7325)

Mariano — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:38:22 -0700

ajtolland, you could add that as a comment to the question, even if it is closed, so that posterity will not find the claims without the explanation...

ajtolland comments on "http://mathoverflow.net/questions/32599/position-and-momentum-in-quanta" (7324)

ajtolland — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:24:22 -0700

V = S, in the above. goddamnit.

ajtolland comments on "http://mathoverflow.net/questions/32599/position-and-momentum-in-quanta" (7323)

ajtolland — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:09:26 -0700

It should be noted somewhere that the mathematical assertions in winger's question regarding rigged Hilbert spaces and the braket formalism are simply wrong.

For quantum mechanics of a particle in 1d, the set up goes as follows: One starts with the nuclear vector space V whose elements are Schwarz test functions, smooth and of rapid descent. Any polynomial in P & Q is well-defined on V and preserves its domain. S carries an inner product, and its completion in this inner product is the usual state space $L^2(R)$.
Bras & kets are respectively, linear and antilinear functionals on S.

Pete L. Clark comments on "http://mathoverflow.net/questions/32599/position-and-momentum-in-quanta" (7309)

Pete L. Clark — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:35:28 -0700

Just for the record: I didn't vote to close this question. I know very (very!) little physics, so I would only vote to close a phsyics-related question if it were blatantly, wildly inappropriate. (Conversely, I have no complaints about the question being closed.)

Ben Webster comments on "http://mathoverflow.net/questions/32599/position-and-momentum-in-quanta" (7286)

Ben Webster — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 02:37:17 -0700

Well, luckily one moderator vote worked. Usually I'm loath to close a question with only one vote to close, but it seems that there should have been more.

Pete L. Clark comments on "http://mathoverflow.net/questions/32599/position-and-momentum-in-quanta" (7282)

Pete L. Clark — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:41:15 -0700

I can corroborate that there is some kind of technical problem with the closing votes on this question: when I look at the moderator tools menu, I see 3 votes to close, whereas when I look at the question itself I see only 1. Earlier today it was 2 and 0.

Harry Gindi comments on "http://mathoverflow.net/questions/32599/position-and-momentum-in-quanta" (7281)

Harry Gindi — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:36:26 -0700

I voted to close this question, but for some reason, my vote to close is not registering (although the server says that I have voted to close).

Edit: I just voted to close another question, and it worked fine, but my vote to close on this question is still not registering.

Hailong Dao comments on "http://mathoverflow.net/questions/32599/position-and-momentum-in-quanta" (7279)

Hailong Dao — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:34:01 -0700

Scott, wasn't this user discussed in this thread? I thought you merged the accounts?

Scott Morrison comments on "http://mathoverflow.net/questions/32599/position-and-momentum-in-quanta" (7277)

Scott Morrison — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:20:09 -0700

Ron L Winger has just asked a question about Position and momentum in quantum mechanics. There are some interesting mathematical issues here, but the question doesn't seem to go near them, and sounds dangerously close to a polemic.