On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 8:44:42 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 12:32:26PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > >
> > > *Not linear in t, but also named "unitary operator", not to be
> confused
> > > with the operator by the same name that preserves
On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 07:11:25PM -0800, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> *OK. I was thinking of the time evolution operator, denoted by U, which I
> believe is linear in t. AG*
Yes, it is linear and unitary. Unitary operators are linear, but
linear operators are not necessarily unitary. That
On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 5:49:34 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 3:11:25 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 9:33:56 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 02:10:44PM -0800,
On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 8:28:30 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 07:11:25PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> >
> > *OK. I was thinking of the time evolution operator, denoted by U, which
> I
> > believe is linear in t. AG*
>
> Yes, it is linear and
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 12:32:26PM -0800, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > *Not linear in t, but also named "unitary operator", not to be confused
> > with the operator by the same name that preserves inner products. AG*
> >
>
>
> *Another correction: the time evolution operator is a
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 12:41:35PM -0800, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> *Spin measurements are irreversible in principle, not simply FAPP. Bruce
> showed that on Avoid2 IIRC. I think this means the measurement process,at
> least in this case, must be non-linear. If that's true, then
6 matches
Mail list logo
