Recent content by sgoodrow

1. Let G be an operator on H (Hilbert Space). Show that: (a) H = 1/2 (G + G^{\dagger}) is Hermitian. (b) K = -1/2 (G - G^{\dagger}) is Hermitian. (c) G = H + iK. Homework Equations ... 3. The Attempt at a Solution : (a) Since the adjoint of the sum of two operators does not change...

Ah, you may have misunderstood me Zapperz. I was not saying that the principle was not well defined; in fact I attributed immense care that I did not say that. Rather, I said that it is not being properly taught, or properly explained, or what have you, as there is clearly a lot of confusion...

At this point in the discussion I just wanted to make a few comments, as I think the way it is moving is precisely how I wanted it to. First, thank you all for responding, your efforts to help me understand this distinction (though I can't say I do understand it fully just yet) are...

See, now this is what I was getting at. Upon inspection of the principle I had the same understanding and judgment, yet unless I am misinterpreting the words of the others in this thread, many are at a disagreement with this statement. Am I correct in understanding your (those who I perceive...

I see what you are saying but can't help but disagree. That isn't to say I take the converse stance, which would be that something can exist without being measurable, but rather that I am skeptical about either conclusion. You stated that: And while I know it is your opinion, I see no...

Ah, sorry for the delay, I was getting emailed every time there was a response and as soon as I observed this phenomenon (of being emailed when there is a response) it seemed to change and I stopped getting the emails. How appropriate, eh? Anyway... Could you explain this a bit more? I don't...

But in that experiment the entire interaction becomes rather wave-like. Isn't the interaction in a particle collider rather particle-like? How do we explain the interaction between two particles in a particle collider? If they are hitting, doesn't that mean they have a specific position and...

Hmm, okay, thanks for your clarification andyferris. I understand your point a lot more now, though haven't quite made up my mind as to what I think is true (need to think about it more, and get a bunch more information--especially on that entanglement stuff!). That said, could you provide...

While I appreciate your responses, I am not fully satisfied so please bear with me. ;) As the reading you suggested mentions, we shouldn't look at the electron's orbit around an atom as a circular orbit but rather as a standing wave. But if we do this, as you seemed to suggest, what does the...

I don't follow nor think that is an applicable analogy (though I could be missing your point). The electron (like all, complex or simple, objects) falls under the "wave-particle duality" concept, but that does not mean they are strictly waves--it also has the particle aspect. This includes...

Hi. This semester I am taking a Philosophy class (introductory) and a Modern Physics class (introductory) and we just recently (in the latter) began officially learning about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. From the lecture (and other reading I've done), I am seeing that the math for...

Recently I begun learning about molecular orbitals and the geometry of an sp orbital. It is my understanding that in the creation of an sp orbital with the combination of an s orbital and p orbital, one gets something that resembles half of a p-orbital (although larger). My professor noted...