Timeline for What's algebraic approach to QM good for?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 17, 2010 at 2:42 | comment | added | Peter Shor | I think the "standard formalism" is probably to deal with finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces and certain examples of infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, but not actually prove anything rigorous about infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in general. | |
| Feb 5, 2010 at 14:13 | comment | added | MBN | I think it shouldn't be called algebraic because it is actually analytic. C* algebras are not part of algebra. | |
| Feb 5, 2010 at 13:29 | answer | added | Igor Khavkine | timeline score: 5 | |
| Feb 4, 2010 at 8:35 | answer | added | Orbicular | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 3, 2010 at 22:56 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | OK, thanks, that helps. Not sure I can offer any useful answer, but at least I understand the question better now. | |
| Feb 3, 2010 at 22:48 | history | edited | Marcin Kotowski | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 672 characters in body
|
| Feb 3, 2010 at 21:52 | history | edited | Steve Huntsman |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 3, 2010 at 21:51 | history | edited | Steve Huntsman |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 3, 2010 at 21:39 | answer | added | Steve Huntsman | timeline score: 6 | |
| Feb 3, 2010 at 21:24 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | Could you please clarify, for those of us with limited physics background, what the "standard formalism" is and how it differs from "this algebraic stuff"? Are you talking about AQFT or something at lower levels? | |
| Feb 3, 2010 at 21:16 | history | asked | Marcin Kotowski | CC BY-SA 2.5 |